[Taxacom] Funding by NSF for taxonomy and phylogenetics compared

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Richard,      Peter Ashlock, who truly understood the value of cladistic "analysis" done correctly, also warned us how destructive strictly cladistic "classifications" would become.  Unfortunately he died too young and such classifications (which Mayr called cladistications) have often caused even more damage.  I would recommend the following paper Ashlock published long ago:   
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096881?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Richard.Zander at mobot.org
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 17:06:29 +0000
> Subject: [Taxacom] Funding by NSF for taxonomy and phylogenetics compared
> 
> 
> I have submitted over the years various diatribes and Jeremiads to Taxacom against the outrages of phylogenetics. Some Taxacomers have reassured us that phylogenetics is a passing fad, and will fade away like the morning dew, or change into something deep and refreshing.
> 
> Just to check with reality, I searched the funding database in NSF for the words "phylogeny" and "taxonomy" in the titles or abstracts for the last 5 years. The results, which I tabulated in Excel, are:
> 
>         Phylogeny                                       Taxonomy
> 2015    33611140                                2015    16574900
> 2014    23649263                                2014    14951327
> 2013    11091123                                2013    12055369
> 2012    8052574                         2012    16439643
> 2011    8801433                         2011    22627716
> 
> total   85205533                                total   82648955
> 
> Thus, projects about "phylogeny" and those about "taxonomy" are about equally funded over the last 5 years at $82 to 85 million dollars.  Taxonomy seems to be holding steady at around $12-14 million per year, but phylogeny has had a burst of popularity among NSF grantors, doubling in funding during 2013-2014, and then increasing in 2015 by another 10 million dollars. It is presently funded at double the rate of taxonomy.
> 
> Some have said that phylogenetics research usually includes good taxonomy. Check the pages of top phylogenetics journals and see if you agree with them that phylogenetics contributes to taxonomic knowledge in the classical sense.
> 
> -------
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden - 4344 Shaw Blvd. - St. Louis - Missouri - 63110 - USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org<mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.