Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy: accessibility and impact evaluation

There has been much discussion of the “taxonomic impediment”. This phrase confuses two kinds of impediment: an impediment to end users imposed by lack of reliable information; and impediments to taxonomy itself, which vary from insufficient funding to low citation rates of taxonomic monographs. In order to resolve both these types of impediment, taxonomy needs to be revitalized through funding and training taxonomists, as well as investing in taxonomic revisions and monographs rather than technological surrogates such as DNA barcoding.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2011.     

Nomencurator: a nomenclatural history model to handle multiple taxonomic views

Evolutionary studies are generating increasing numbers of phylogenies which, in turn, sometimes result in changes to hierarchical organization and therefore changes in taxonomic nomenclature. A three-layered data model for a nomenclature database has been developed in order to elucidate the information structure in nomenclature and as a means to organize and manage a large, dynamic knowledge-base. In contrast to most other taxonomic databases, the model is publication-oriented rather than taxon-oriented and dynamic rather than static, in order to mimic the processes that taxonomists use naturally. The three-layered structure requires data integrity localized to each publication, instead of global data integrity, which relaxes constraints common to taxonomic databases and permits multiple taxonomic opinions: taxon names are made available as metadata within the model. Its prototype implementation, written in C ⁺⁺, has an autonomous self-identification mechanism to avoid spurious data-inflation in a publication-oriented data model. Self-identification is also desirable for distributed implementations of the nomenclature database. Publication-oriented design also will make maintenance easier than for taxon-oriented databases, much of the maintenance workload being amenable to automation. The three-layered data model was designed for use by taxonomists, but is also able to provide concise, reduced expression for non-experts required in biodiversity research, for example.     

Biodiversity and a taxonomy of Chilean taxonomists

The Chilean taxonomic community is reduced, with the largest fraction of taxonomists devoted to well known groups, such as vertebrates. Some invertebrates and plant taxa have no Chilean taxonomist working on them, all factors that hamper the inventory of the Chilean biota.     

SPECIES CONCEPTS IN THE GENUSUSNEA(LICHENIZED ASCOMYCETES)

Practically most of the taxonomists working on vascular plants and fungi are using the so-called taxonomic species concept, relying largely on morphological criteria or other observable patterns of discontinuity and assuming that these patterns are reflecting the underlying genetic integrity of species. Such a concept is described in detail here for the genusUsnea. The typological view versus the populational view of species are discussed. The diagnostic value of characters used by previous and recent taxonomists of the genus is analysed. The fact thatUsneahas such a bad taxonomic reputation is discussed. The use by J. Motyka, author of the world monograph published in the thirties, of characters that are strongly modified by environmental factors together with a typological view of species are thought to be mainly responsible for this. More than 770 names have been published worldwide so far and it is suggested that around 50% are to be considered as synonyms.     

中国兽类名录(2021版)

中国是全球兽类物种多样性最高的国家之一,掌握我国兽类物种多样性和分类地位是兽类学研究的基础前提,也是科学保护野生种群的前提。为厘清中国兽类的物种数量及分类地位等关键分类学信息,中国动物学会兽类学分会组织国内长期致力于兽类各类群分类的科学研究人员,在总结前人研究的基础上,根据最新的形态学和分子遗传学证据,综合现代兽类分类学家意见,经编委会充分讨论,形成了最新的中国兽类名录,包括我国现阶段兽类12目59科254属686种。该中国兽类名录使用基于系统发生关系的分类系统,并对物种有效性进行了充分慎重的确认和讨论。     

The role of taxonomy in species conservation

Taxonomy and species conservation are often assumed to be completely interdependent activities. However, a shortage of taxonomic information and skills, and confusion over where the limits to 'species' should be set, both cause problems for conservationists. There is no simple solution because species lists used for conservation planning (e.g. threatened species, species richness estimates, species covered by legislation) are often also used to determine which units should be the focus of conservation actions; this despite the fact that the two processes have such different goals and information needs. Species conservation needs two kinds of taxonomic solution: (i) a set of practical rules to standardize the species units included on lists; and (ii) an approach to the units chosen for conservation recovery planning which recognizes the dynamic nature of natural systems and the differences from the units in listing processes that result. These solutions are well within our grasp but require a new kind of collaboration among conservation biologists, taxonomists and legislators, as well as an increased resource of taxonomists with relevant and high-quality skills.     

在线植物志: 网络时代分类学的方法和实践

全球气候变化、环境污染、资源被过度利用、外来物种入侵和生境丧失威胁着地球上物种的生存。分类学研究的主要任务就是在这些物种即将消失之前去发现、记录和认知它们。社会公众、政府决策部门和科学发展本身都对分类学提出了诸多需求。然而, 当前分类学所面临的困境包括认识上的误区、不科学的评价机制、研究队伍的萎缩以及陈旧的知识管理和发布模式等, 这些因素不仅阻碍了分类学的学科发展, 而且也制约了分类学家履行社会责任。利用现代的网络信息技术, 构建一个覆盖分类学研究工作流程、整合已有在线数据资源、满足分类学研究群体、项目和研究机构共同需求的分类学社区网络, 并最终实现分类学的终极目标--在线植物志, 将会极大地改善分类学的知识产出和应用环境, 提升它在当今科学技术发展条件下的竞争力, 使其真正成为一门21世纪的科学。     

中国植物分类学者的历史与现状

中国植物资源丰富, 长期以来被外国人所关注和研究。直到1916年, 中国植物分类学者才开始独立研究本国植物, 并经历了从民国时期开始自立、到1949年后自主完成《中国高等植物图鉴》《中国植物志》等国家级和相对完整的地方植物志以及中外合作完成英文版的国家植物志Flora of China、再到21世纪新一代学者每年更新《中国生物物种名录》并且开始主导国际性植物分类学研究工作等3个主要时期。统计表明, 超过3,000位中国学者参与过植物命名或植物名称处理等命名相关工作, 近些年更是达到每年新增100人左右的新高。但这种繁荣局面与中国植物分类学的衰退状况彼此矛盾。为了解释这个矛盾, 结合对历史回顾的深入分析说明, 真正能够反映分类学发展程度的量化指标应当是“活跃”分类学者数目。这个数目在21世纪停滞不前, 表明当今的分类学人才队伍建设仍存在不少问题, 特别是新分类群的发表与系统学研究脱节, 对分子系统学证据的应用仍有不足, 以及科研评价体系偏重于论文影响因子等。本文因此提出了当今分类学者应该具备的6条技能标准: (1)具有科学精神和全球视野; (2)掌握学科内知识; (3)掌握学科外知识; (4)具备野外工作技能; (5)具备标本馆和实验室工作技能; (6)掌握文献和数据库检索技能。     

The taxonomist - an endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival

Background

Taxonomy or biological systematics is the basic scientific discipline of biology, postulating hypotheses of identity and relationships, on which all other natural sciences dealing with organisms relies. However, the scientific contributions of taxonomists have been largely neglected when using species names in scientific publications by not citing the authority on which they are based.

Discussion

Consequences of this neglect is reduced recognition of the importance of taxonomy, which in turn results in diminished funding, lower interest from journals in publishing taxonomic research, and a reduced number of young scientists entering the field. This has lead to the so-called taxonomic impediment at a time when biodiversity studies are of critical importance. Here we emphasize a practical and obvious solution to this dilemma. We propose that whenever a species name is used, the author(s) of the species hypothesis be included and the original literature source cited, including taxonomic revisions and identification literature - nothing more than what is done for every other hypothesis or assumption included in a scientific publication. In addition, we postulate that journals primarily publishing taxonomic studies should be indexed in ISI^SM.

Summary

The proposal outlined above would make visible the true contribution of taxonomists within the scientific community, and would provide a more accurate assessment for funding agencies impact and importance of taxonomy, and help in the recruitment of young scientists into the field, thus helping to alleviate the taxonomic impediment. In addition, it would also make much of the biological literature more robust by reducing or alleviating taxonomic uncertainty.     

A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology

Community ecology seeks to explain the number and relative abundance of coexisting species. Four research frontiers in community ecology are closely tied to research in systematics and taxonomy: the statistics of species richness estimators, global patterns of biodiversity, the influence of global climate change on community structure, and phylogenetic influences on community structure. The most pressing needs for taxonomic information in community ecology research are usable taxonomic keys, current nomenclature, species occurrence records and resolved phylogenies. These products can best be obtained from Internet-based phylogenetic and taxonomic resources, but the lack of trained professional systematists and taxonomists threatens this effort. Community ecologists will benefit most directly from research in systematics and taxonomy by making better use of resources in museums and herbaria, and by actively seeking training, information and collaborations with taxonomic specialists.     

A review of criticisms of phylogenetic nomenclature: is taxonomic freedom the fundamental issue?

The proposal to implement a phylogenetic nomenclatural system governed by the PhyloCode), in which taxon names are defined by explicit reference to common descent, has met with strong criticism from some proponents of phylogenetic taxonomy (taxonomy based on the principle of common descent in which only clades and species are recognized). We examine these criticisms and find that some of the perceived problems with phylogenetic nomenclature are based on misconceptions, some are equally true of the current rank-based nomenclatural system, and some will be eliminated by implementation of the PhyloCode. Most of the criticisms are related to an overriding concern that, because the meanings of names are associated with phylogenetic pattern which is subject to change, the adoption of phylogenetic nomenclature will lead to increased instability in the content of taxa. This concern is associated with the fact that, despite the widespread adoption of the view that taxa are historical entities that are conceptualized based on ancestry, many taxonomists also conceptualize taxa based on their content. As a result, critics of phylogenetic nomenclature have argued that taxonomists should be free to emend the content of taxa without constraints imposed by nomenclatural decisions. However, in phylogenetic nomenclature the contents of taxa are determined, not by the taxonomist, but by the combination of the phylogenetic definition of the name and a phylogenetic hypothesis. Because the contents of taxa, once their names are defined, can no longer be freely modified by taxonomists, phylogenetic nomenclature is perceived as limiting taxonomic freedom. We argue that the form of taxonomic freedom inherent to phylogenetic nomenclature is appropriate to phylogenetic taxonomy in which taxa are considered historical entities that are discovered through phylogenetic analysis and are not human constructs.     

La collaboration entre les taxonomistes et les groupes de travail de la C.I.L.B.

Summary The author examines in his report some aspects of the relations existing between the ecologists of the C.I.L.B. working teams and the taxonomists which collaborate with the identification centre, and between these taxonomists and the identification centre itself. The collaboration between taxonomists and ecologists must certainly be encouraged by the C.I.L.B., especially with regard to those biological control projects such as the Olive fly and the San Jose Scale, where behavioural caracters of the parasitic species may be determinant for their identification. Emphasis is given to the importance of the behavioural caracters in taxonomy and examples of this are reported. The collaboration between taxonomists and the identification centre of the C.I.L.B. would be favoured through the following: 1. The establishment of a card file at the C.I.L.B. head-quarters on the entomophagous insect species and their known hosts for a future publication of a synoptic catalog for the palaearctic region; 2. The institution of fellowships for taxonomists to study Museum collections; 3. The establishment of a homotype collection at the C.I.L.B. headquarters, which will constitute, with the file card system, a solid base for the future development of taxonomic work; 4. The reservation of a day for discussions about nomenclature questions at every C.I.L.B. meeting of taxonomists. The author recommends to address reprints concerning the taxonomy and systematic of entomophagous species to the C.I.L.B. headquaters (Entomologisches Institut der E.T.H., Universit?tstrasse 2, Zürich 6, Switzerland) for the establishment of an extensive reference collection to be used for publication of the bibliography on this subject.      

Zoological nomenclature in the century of extinctions: priority vs. ‘usage’

Our epoch is a crucial one for scientific knowledge of the organisms that live on our planet. The combination of the biodiversity crisis and the taxonomic gap results in taxonomic urgency. In this context, great attention should be paid to the nomenclatural rules helping taxonomists in their urgent task, rather than diverting their time and energy to secondary questions or debates. In zoology, the new criterion of ‘prevailing usage’, introduced in the 1999 edition of the Code of nomenclature to ‘protect’ some nomina, raises four kinds of problems: (1) it weakens the binding value and strength of the Code, thus indirectly bringing support to the development of alternative nomenclatural systems; (2) it encourages personal debates among taxonomists, giving undue importance to the ‘argument of authority’ in nomenclatural decisions; (3) it sends a wrong message to non-taxonomists as regards completion of the taxonomic work; (4) it acts as a threat against natural history museums, in devaluing onomatophores (type specimens), the conservation of which is one of their major ‘visible’ functions. In conclusion, it is suggested that ‘protection’ of some nomina ‘threatened’ by rules of the Code should be limited strictly to nomina well-known outside the small world of systematics. This would require new rules for the Code to clearly define categories of usage on the basis of objective criteria.     

Phytochemistry and plant taxonomy — an essay on the chemotaxonomy of higher plants

Modern methods of plant classification and plant nomenclature are outlined. It is proposed that taxonomists should make greater efforts to conserve existing plant names, for the benefit of phytochemists and other users. Chemotaxonomic principles are considered and some examples are provided to show the importance of chemical evidence in taxonomic revision. The value of chemical characters in the classification of plants below the specific level is also emphasized.