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.     

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.     

Taxonomy‐free molecular diatom index for high‐throughput eDNA biomonitoring

Current biodiversity assessment and biomonitoring are largely based on the morphological identification of selected bioindicator taxa. Recently, several attempts have been made to use eDNA metabarcoding as an alternative tool. However, until now, most applied metabarcoding studies have been based on the taxonomic assignment of sequences that provides reference to morphospecies ecology. Usually, only a small portion of metabarcoding data can be used due to a limited reference database and a lack of phylogenetic resolution. Here, we investigate the possibility to overcome these limitations using a taxonomy‐free approach that allows the computing of a molecular index directly from eDNA data without any reference to morphotaxonomy. As a case study, we use the benthic diatoms index, commonly used for monitoring the biological quality of rivers and streams. We analysed 87 epilithic samples from Swiss rivers, the ecological status of which was established based on the microscopic identification of diatom species. We compared the diatom index derived from eDNA data obtained with or without taxonomic assignment. Our taxonomy‐free approach yields promising results by providing a correct assessment for 77% of examined sites. The main advantage of this method is that almost 95% of OTUs could be used for index calculation, compared to 35% in the case of the taxonomic assignment approach. Its main limitations are under‐sampling and the need to calibrate the index based on the microscopic assessment of diatoms communities. However, once calibrated, the taxonomy‐free molecular index can be easily standardized and applied in routine biomonitoring, as a complementary tool allowing fast and cost‐effective assessment of the biological quality of watercourses.     

Molecular operational taxonomic units as approximations of species in the light of evolutionary models and empirical data from Fungi

During the last couple of decades, an increasing number of studies use sequence clusters as units for taxonomic diversity. It is well known that such molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs) do not necessarily correspond to species, but they are treated as such when measuring diversity and testing theories. Here, I show that data from studies of molecular evolution and species diversification of fungi indicate that commonly used cut‐offs are likely to lump species in many cases. At the same time, empirical studies show that the mean within‐species variation is close to these cut‐offs. That the within‐species variation estimates are plausible is supported by coalescence modelling under a range of parameter settings. In addition, studies using crossing tests to delimit species show that there often is an overlap in within‐ and between‐species distances. The available data therefore indicate that sequence clusters are likely to misrepresent species. However, to keep a biological relevance, MOTUs should be kept in close agreement with species. Studies using them should therefore asses how sensitive the results are to differences between MOTUs and species – something that is rarely done. An even better solution is to directly include the uncertainty in species delimitation in the analyses, but in many cases, we need to increase our knowledge of taxonomy and evolution to do this accurately. Even if the empirical data referred to here pertain to the “barcoding” region of rDNA in fungi, there is nothing indicating that the situation is substantially better for other taxa or genes.     

Recognizing species,present and past

Nobody disputes that nature is meaningfully “packaged” in some way. But debate persists over exactly how (and even whether) the boundaries dividing taxa should (can) be drawn. At one end of the scale, some zealots abstrusely deny real existence to higher taxa.¹ At the other, laborers at the taxonomic rock‐face confront genuine challenges in recognizing and delineating the species that systematists agree constitute the most fundamental unit of taxonomic analysis. 2 , 3     

红菇科可食真菌的若干分类问题

红菇科Russulaceae包含大量全球广泛采食的野生食用菌,同时也有一定数目的毒菌。该科特别是红菇属的分类是大型真菌分类的难点。近年来DNA数据大量应用于红菇科的分类,更新了属的界定和概念,发现了大量新物种,为食用菌和毒菌的识别和鉴定带来了可用的名称。然而,DNA证据并不总是与形态证据吻合,这又为食用菌和毒菌的识别和名称的使用带来了困扰和不便。本文针对乳菇属、多汁乳菇属和红菇属中的重要食用菌类群,回顾了近年来的分类研究进展,分析了研究背后的数据实情和存在的分类问题。认为：在食用菌和毒菌的确定上,依靠物种复合群共有的形态特征更具有可操作性;依据DNA序列进行的劈分式分类和依靠少数样品的特征及DNA序列上的少量差异发表新种的做法可能产生不便于使用的后果;在乳菇属和红菇属中,“BLAST相似度低的即为新种”的分类实践存在错误风险;充分结合历史资料和各个类群的特点,确定物种划分的阈值,才能有望解决红菇科真菌的分类问题。     

A biological trait approach to assess the functional composition of subtidal benthic communities in an estuarine ecosystem

Within transitional/estuarine environments ‘ecosystem functioning’ has been mostly investigated with “traditional” taxonomic analysis, based on the taxonomic composition of benthic invertebrate communities. However, ‘ecosystem functioning’ depends also greatly on the functional characteristics (biological traits) of organisms.It was a priori suggested that the biological traits of the subtidal benthic invertebrate communities within an estuarine environment would respond to the high variability of environmental pressures (natural and human induced) within this type of ecosystem.For this study, traditional taxonomic analysis (species richness, species density and Shannon–Wiener diversity) as well as biological trait analysis were used together for the first time to investigate the response of the subtidal benthic invertebrate communities to the environmental pressures within the Mondego estuary (Portugal).Biological trait analysis, in addition to traditional taxonomic analysis provided a more comprehensive understanding of the functioning within this type of ecosystem. Some of the most important outcomes are: (i) the trait “salinity preference” was the most important trait that distributed the species along the estuary, (ii) the central part of the estuary appeared to be under higher environmental stress levels than the other areas, as suggested by a dominance of some “opportunistic” traits (e.g. small short-lived species), (iii) the ratio between functional diversity (FD) and Shannon–Wiener diversity (H′) indicated lower functional redundancy at the upper reaches of the estuary. Our results, suggest that the ratio (FD/H′) might be a helpful tool to visualize this functional attribute and could potentially be applied to different communities from distinct environments. Using the traditional taxonomic analysis alone, this last functional aspect would not be detectable. Therefore, the inclusion of biological traits analysis is recommendable for estuarine ecological studies.     

Is The Amphibian Tree of Life really fatally flawed?

Wiens (2007 , Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55–56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.'s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1–370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is “a disaster” and recommending that readers “simply ignore this study”. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as “fatal flaws”: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG‐1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony “assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates”; and (4) the results were at times “clearly erroneous”, as evidenced by the inferred non‐monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non‐monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG‐1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23–90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed “strong support” for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non‐monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719–748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was < 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG‐1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579–596) also found them to be non‐monophyletic. Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not with the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non‐monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non‐monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus, Ranidae, Rana, Bufo; and the placement of Brachycephalus within “Eleutherodactylus”, and Lineatriton within “Pseudoeurycea”), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non‐monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.     

Taxonomie, écologie et lutte biologique

Summary It is impossible to study modern taxonomy without taking into consideration the population genetic and ecology. Thé Linnean concept of monotypic species should be replaced by the biometric study of the frequency of the variability of the biological characters (particularly morphological) used in taxonomy. The study of populations offers a larger scientific interest than the one of isolated types. It gives the possibility of caracterizing the evolution stability of the species. So, Taxonomy can help considerably in biological control. By revealing large variability species, it gives a criterion of their adjusting plasticity. But, by definition, the biological control is based on the adjusting capacity of the entomophagous insects either to a new host or to a new environment. Information given by the taxonomist on the species stability has consequently a great value in the choice and use of the Entomophagous insects. — Ecologists using biological control, expect from the taxonomist to lie more than a label, which implies the use of biometric analysis methods in Entomophagous taxonomy.      

Taxonomic versus allometric constraints on non‐linear interaction strengths

Recently, the importance of body mass and allometric scaling for the structure and dynamics of ecological networks has been highlighted in several ground‐breaking studies. However, advances in the understanding of generalities across ecosystem types are impeded to a considerable extent by a methodological dichotomy contrasting a considerable portion of marine ecology on the one hand opposite to traditional community ecology on the other hand. Many marine ecologists are bound to the taxonomy‐neglecting size spectrum approach when describing and analysing community patterns. In contrast, the mindset of the other school is focused on taxonomies according to the Linnean system at the cost of obscuring information due to applying species or population averages of body masses and other traits. Following other pioneering studies, we addressed this lingering gap, and studied non‐linear interaction strengths (i.e. functional responses) between two taxonomically‐distinct terrestrial arthropod predators (centipedes and spiders) of varying individual body masses and their prey. We fitted three non‐linear functional response models to the data: (1) a taxonomic model not accounting for variance in body masses amongst predator individuals, (2) an allometric model ignoring taxonomic differences between predator individuals, and (3) a combined model including body mass and taxonomic effects. Ranked according to their AICs, the combined model performs better than the allometric model, which provides a superior fit to the data than the taxonomic model. These results strongly indicate that the body masses of predator and prey individuals were responsible for most of the variation in non‐linear interaction strengths. Taxonomy explained some specific patterns in allometric exponents between groups and revealed mechanistic insights in predation efficiencies. Reconciling quantitative allometric models as employed by the marine size‐spectrum approach with taxonomic information may thus yield quantitative results that are generalized across ecosystem types and taxonomic groups. Using these quantitative models as novel null models should also strengthen subsequent taxonomic analyses.     

Genomic data reveal deep genetic structure but no support for current taxonomic designation in a grasshopper species complex

Taxonomy has traditionally relied on morphological and ecological traits to interpret and classify biological diversity. Over the last decade, technological advances and conceptual developments in the field of molecular ecology and systematics have eased the generation of genomic data and changed the paradigm of biodiversity analysis. Here we illustrate how traditional taxonomy has led to species designations that are supported neither by high throughput sequencing data nor by the quantitative integration of genomic information with other sources of evidence. Specifically, we focus on Omocestus antigai and Omocestus navasi, two montane grasshoppers from the Pyrenean region that were originally described based on quantitative phenotypic differences and distinct habitat associations (alpine vs. Mediterranean‐montane habitats). To validate current taxonomic designations, test species boundaries, and understand the factors that have contributed to genetic divergence, we obtained phenotypic (geometric morphometrics) and genome‐wide SNP data (ddRADSeq) from populations covering the entire known distribution of the two taxa. Coalescent‐based phylogenetic reconstructions, integrative Bayesian model‐based species delimitation, and landscape genetic analyses revealed that populations assigned to the two taxa show a spatial distribution of genetic variation that do not match with current taxonomic designations and is incompatible with ecological/environmental speciation. Our results support little phenotypic variation among populations and a marked genetic structure that is mostly explained by geographic distances and limited population connectivity across the abrupt landscapes characterizing the study region. Overall, this study highlights the importance of integrative approaches to identify taxonomic units and elucidate the evolutionary history of species.     

Towards a taxonomy of Bacteria and Archaea based on interactive and cumulative data repositories

Taxonomy in the second decade of the 21st century is benefiting from technological advances in molecular microbiology, especially those related to genomics. Gene and genome databases are significantly increasing due to intense research activities in the field of molecular ecology and genomics. Taxa, and especially species, are tailored by means of the recognition of a phylogenetic, genomic and phenotypic coherence that reveal their uniqueness in the classification schema. Phylogenetic coherence is mainly revealed by means of 16S rRNA gene analyses for which curated databases such as EzTaxon and LTP provide a valuable tool for tree reconstruction to taxonomy users. On the other hand, in silico full or partial genomic sequence comparisons are called on to substitute cumbersome techniques such as DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH) to genomically circumscribe species. DDH similarity values around 70% would be equivalent to ANI values of 96%. Finally, finding an exclusive phenotypic property for the taxa to be classified is of paramount relevance to producing an operative and predictive classification system. The current methods used for taxonomic classification require significant laboratory experimentation, and generally will not produce interactive databases. The new high-throughput metabolomic technologies, such as ICR-FT and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry methods, open the door to the construction of metabolic databases for taxonomic purposes. It is to be foreseen that, in the future, taxonomists will benefit significantly from public databases speeding up the classification process. However, serious effort will be needed to harmonize them and to prevent inaccurate material.     

Unresolved questions in genitalia coevolution: bridging taxonomy,speciation, and developmental genetics

Systematists and geneticists study biological diversity, but they use different approaches that rarely intersect. A very common pattern that is of interest for both researchers is the rapid evolution of genitalia, a trait of significant taxonomic utility in several sexually reproducing animal clades. The idea that both male and female genitalia are species-specific and play a role in reproductive isolation has long been controversial but has recently gained a renewed interest by speciation and developmental geneticists. Here, I highlight six unresolved questions in genitalia coevolution and I argue that systematists, with their well training in comparative morphology, usage of large and geographically diverse collections, and ability to apply molecular genetics techniques, can make important contributions. Such an extension of systematics into the speciation and developmental genetics realms is a promising opportunity to expand “integrative taxonomy” comparisons between DNA and morphology into more explanatory relationships between the two sources of taxonomic data.