[Taxacom] Taxonomy in Europe in the 21st century

[George D.F. (Buz) Wilson]

"DNA taxonomy" isn't taxonomy, or perhaps I should say it isn't 
descriptive  systematics.
It might be an identification tool, but it has problems (see many 
previous posts here):
1. It doesn't distinguish some species (for many possible reasons);
2. it may distinguish lineages (again for many possible reasons) that 
may or may not be definable species-level taxa;

3. I could go on, but the biggest problem is not a empirical scientific 
one: funding agencies provide research support in a zero-sum 
competetion. If "DNA taxonomy" gets funding meant for descriptive 
systematics (actually describing taxa), then less funding will be 
available for  those who describe new taxa. This is happening here in 
Australia: our Australian Biological Resources Survey has given grants 
to researchers who do not describe species but only collect mtDNA 
sequences. This nomenclature of "DNA taxonomy" is also encouraging 
Museum managers to hire molecular-only researchers, who do not use 
Museum collections. These managers claim that such scientists can bring 
in more money. Maybe so, but what about the hundreds & thousands of 
undescribed taxa in the collections? And even more in our rapidly 
degrading global habitat?

So in my view, the concept of "DNA taxonomy" steals both the focus and 
the funding from our need to build global taxomomic capacity. Doing so 
is a complex problem; we should not make it more complicated by the use 
of poorly defined concepts.

Disclaimer: I use genetic data, but for me its role is in understanding 
patterns and timing of speciation, rather than being directly involved 
in the descriptive part of the research. In one of my mtDNA data sets, I 
have encountered both problems 1 & 2.  [OK that's my "one screen" post 
limit - I'm outta here!]

Buz Wilson
Australian Museum

Torbjørn Ekrem wrote:
> I think you might be confusing DNA barcoding with DNA taxonomy (or 
> perhaps you are equalling identification with taxonomy)? In any case, I 
> would like to point out that taxonomy is much, much more than 
> identifying species, and as a traditional taxonomist (who works with 
> species description, delimitation, identification, phylogeny, 
> classification, biogeography) I have discovered what a great tool DNA 
> barcoding is in my work on non-biting midges. In my opinion, DNA 
> barcoding will increase the need for taxonomists and not the opposite 
> since the DNA library on which DNA barcoding depends needs to be made 
> and maintained by taxonomic experts. - and as we know taxonomy is a very 
> dynamic science. As I see it, the possibility for automated species 
> identification will enable numerous large scale, multi taxon inventories 
> and biomonitoring. Something that we are quite unable to achieve with 
> our declining population of taxonomists today. And if DNA barcoding is 
> only able to identify the 90-95% most common species, that's just fine 
> with me: we can concentrate our efforts on the much more scientifically 
> interesting 5-10%. Wouldn't that be nice?
>