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。     

Development trends in taxonomy,with special reference to fungi

Taxonomy is a traditional subject, but it still receives attention and has become a topic of much discussion in recent years. Many of these discussions have raised concerns about the future of taxonomy, especially with regard to the workforce responsible for the discovery of new species in the context of declining biodiversity. Previous discussions were based on the taxonomic data of plants and animals, but the status of fungal taxonomy has not been mentioned. Fungi have one of the highest levels of biodiversity among all living organisms, second only to insects. The discussion of the future of taxonomy without the inclusion of fungal data is incomplete. Here, we present the results of analyses based on all new fungal taxa published since 1753. Fungal taxonomy is an ever‐growing area of study with increasing numbers of new taxa being described and growing numbers of fungal taxonomists. Compared with plants and most animal groups, there has been a much sharper increase in the rate at which new fungal taxa are being described. Furthermore, the number of taxonomists studying fungi has increased at a faster speed than those studying plants or animals. This indicates that fungal taxonomy is a prosperous subject and a dynamic area for scientific studies, and that it deserves much more attention and support. The study of fungal taxonomy will deepen our understanding of the biodiversity of our planet.     

A charismatic new species of green lacewing discovered in Malaysia (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae): the confluence of citizen scientist, online image database and cybertaxonomy

An unusual new species of green lacewing (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae: Semachrysa jadesp. n.) is described from Selangor (Malaysia) as a joint discovery by citizen scientist and professional taxonomists. The incidental nature of this discovery is underscored by the fact that the species was initially photographed and then released, with images subsequently posted to an online image database. It was not until the images in the database were randomly examined by the professional taxonomists that it was determined that the species was in fact new. A subsequent specimen was collected at the same locality and is described herein along with another specimen identified from nearby Sabah.     

Digest: Resolving phylogenomic conflicts in characiform fishes†

How can taxonomists best resolve the challenge of curating and analyzing large phylogenomic datasets that produce incongruent but highly supported topologies? Betancur‐R et al. used a recently established hypothesis‐testing procedure on a large dataset of genes and species to study the evolutionary relationships of characiform fishes, finding that past conclusions of non‐monophyly may have been problematic and establishing monophyly with high confidence. The new findings highlight the importance of using dense taxon sampling to resolve conflicting relationships with phylogenomic data.     

PROBLEMS WITH REGARD TO REPR0DUCTIVE BIOLOGY IN PLANT TAXONOMY

Plant taxonomists traditionally place a heayy reliance on floral charactess in assessing relationships and in arriving at taxonomic conclusions. From the standpoint of reproductive biology, differences in number, shape and position of floral parts, in perianth-color patterns, and in various phenological traits, are all features that represent adaptations to various modes of pollination. Such an awareness can immeasurably aid the plant taxonomists in making intelli-gent taxonomic assessments.     

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.     

On the Other "Phylogenetic Systematics"

De Queiroz and Gauthier, in a serial paper, argue that biological taxonomy is in a sad state, because taxonomists harbor "widely held belief" systems that are archaic and insufficient for modern classification, and that the bulk of practicing taxonomists are essentialists. Their paper argues for the scrapping of the current system of nomenclature, but fails to provide specific rules for the new "Phylogenetic Systematics"—instead we have been presented with a vague and sketchy manifesto based upon the assertion that "clades are individuals" and therefore must be pointed at with proper names, rather than diagnosed by synapomorphies. They claim greater stability for "node pointing," yet even their own examples show that the opposite is true, and their node pointing system is only more stable in a purely metaphysical sense detached from characters, evidence, usage of names, and composition of groups. We will show that the node pointing system is actually far LESS stable than the existing Linnaean System when stability is measured by the rational method of determining the net change in taxa (species) included in a particular group under different classifications.     

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.     

Taxonomic structure of the fossil record is shaped by sampling bias

Understanding biases that affect how species are partitioned into higher taxa is critical for much of paleobiology, as higher taxa are commonly used to estimate species diversity through time. We test the validity of using higher taxa as a proxy for species diversity for the first time by examining one of the best fossil records we have, that of deep-sea microfossils. Using a new, taxonomically standardized, data set of coccolithophorid species and genera recorded from 143 deep-sea drilling sites in the North Atlantic, Caribbean, and Mediterranean, we show that there is a two-stepped change in the ratio of species to genera over the last 150 myr. This change is highly unexpected and correlates strongly with changes in both the number of deep-sea sites yielding coccolithophorids that have been studied and with the number of taxonomists who have published on those sections. The same pattern is present in both structurally complex heterococcoliths and the simpler nannoliths, suggesting that increasing complexity is not the driving factor. As a stepped species-to-genus ratio exists even after subsampling to standardize either the numbers of sites or numbers of papers, both factors must be contributing substantially to the observed pattern. Although some limited biological signature from major extinction events can be recognized from changes in the species-to-genus ratio, the numbers of sites and the numbers of taxonomists combined explain some 82% of the observed variation over long periods of geological time. Such a strong correlation argues against using raw species-to-genus ratios to infer biological processes without taking sampling into account and suggests that higher taxa cannot be taken as unbiased proxies for species diversity.     

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.      

Taxonomic aggregation does not alleviate the lack of consistency in analysing diversity in long‐term phytoplankton monitoring data: a rejoinder to Pomati et al. (2015)

相似文献   

Oranges and lemons: clues to the taxonomy of Citrus from molecular markers

Go into any grocery store and one is confronted with an array of Citrus fruit: oranges, grapefruit, mandarins (tangerines), lemons and limes. This is rich bounty for the shopper, but taxonomists are perplexed as to how to classify the various kinds of Citrus that have existed since antiquity. Now, thanks to new genetic and molecular biological techniques, the relationships between these fruit are being unraveled and show that there are probably only three true species.     

The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st century

HAWKSWORTH, D. L., 1992. The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st century. The procedures of biological nomenclature are now under immense pressure to change. Users are frustrated by the instability of names and lack of consensus, and increasingly undertake work previously the province of taxonomists; data are presented to show they tend to ignore unwelcome changes. Taxonomists themselves are deflected from both systematic and phylogenetic investigations, and documenting the world's biodiversity, by nomenclatural matters. A survey of 60 U.K. botanical taxonomists revealed that about half spent 10–75% of their research time on nomenclatural matters; extrapolated to the U.K. as a whole, botanical nomenclature could occupy up to 52 full-time posts at a cost of £ 1.3 million. Further, an analysis of 15 monographs of fungal genera showed that overall 85% of the names investigated were not accepted. The major problems to confront relate to concepts of priority, effective and valid publication, illegitimacy, types, ambiregnal organisms and the decision-making bodies. While most of these issues have been overcome by bacteriologists, only now are those concerned with botanical and zoological nomenclature starting to tackle them in earnest. A more effective biological nomenclature could be produced by extending the concept of lists of nomenclaturally protected names. This would resolve questions of effective and valid publication, priority, and application. Such lists would primarily assist taxonomists by dealing with much of the nomenclatural ‘noise’ of the past. Registration procedures are needed to complement such lists for names introduced in the future. The need for standard names and classifications fixed for limited periods is increasingly being met by specialist user groups and also concerns some taxonomists, but is best handled outside formal systems by appropriate specialist bodies. Increased harmonization of the Codes is possible when facing common problems and essential to resolve the difficulties posed by ambiregnal organisms. The image of taxonomy is adversely affected by unsatisfactory nomenclatural systems. Taxonomists should be responsible and refrain from changing names only for nomenclatural reasons while these matters are in discussion. Users and taxonomists need to work with nomenclaturalists to improve the effectiveness of biological nomenclature, if they are to ensure that it will fulfil both their requirements in the 21st century. The prospects for systematics are bleak if it fails to consummate the dual responsibilities of scientific endeavour and user requirements