[Taxacom] barcoding article

Jason Mate jfmate at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 28 18:41:40 CDT 2010


John, you are once again reading between the lines. And in any case it is true that taxonomy┬┤s end product is a product for other fields. What is so outrageous about that? And as for "new methods", I think you are against "DNA-only" based species definitions, which is well and good. But using additional tools (whatever they may be) to delimit, describe and identify taxa is not debasing taxonomy. They do provide other angles and insights which are, like morphology, limited in scope. So using several sources can only help your decision (which is what it is) in calling something a new species (which species concept you use is a whole different issue). These methods can be misused of course, but this also happens with other data sources and it depends on the quality and honesty of the scientist. I can enumerate plenty of cases of shoddy "traditional" (only morphology) taxonomy. So cheer up!
Best
Jason

> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:44:23 -0400
> From: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] barcoding article
> 
> Excerpt from Malte C. Ebach  & Marcelo R. de Carvalho
> 
>  
> 
> Anti-intellectualism in the DNA Barcoding Enterprise
> 
> ZOOLOGIA 27 (2): 165-178, 2010
> 
>  
> 
> "There are two clear-cut ways in which taxonomy should be strengthened.
> The
> 
> first is to give more academic appointments to taxonomists who have
> mastered
> 
> the substance, and not just the biometric methodology, of systematics,
> biologists
> 
> who are experts on reasonably large groups of organisms on a continental
> or
> 
> global basis. They must be allowed to take their place among the
> theoretical
> 
> and experimental ecologists now so much in favor in biology departments"
> 
> (WILSON 1971:741).
> 
>  
> 
> Forty years of sentiment for an ailing scientific field is slowly
> turning into resentment. The short article written by WILSON (1971),
> from which the epigraph above is taken, highlighting the plight of
> taxonomy, is in strong contrast to recent calls for taxonomic
> innovation:
> 
>  
> 
>  "...morphology alone is known to be inadequate to the task of species
> level identification in many instances" (PACKER et al. 2009: 42).
> 
>  
> 
> "We shall then ask how modern means of sharing data, especially the
> Internet, might be used to make taxonomy more efficient and to improve
> its links with its end-users." (GODFRAY et al. 2008: 943).
> 
>  
> 
> "Taxonomists should embrace new tools that are potentially useful (such
> as DNA barcodes for species discovery and identification and DNA
> taxonomy to help test species boundaries) and catch the attention and
> interest of other scientists." (AGNARSSON & KUNTNER 2007: 534).
> 
>  
> 
> "...taxonomists will display a regrettable lack of foresight for the
> future of taxonomy if we do not integrate all of the methods that are
> now available to delimit species boundaries into a synthetic approach."
> (DAYRAT 2005: 412).
> 
>  
> 
> "The new excitement about taxonomy is driven partly by advances in
> technology, and partly by newly perceived needs given the biodiversity
> crisis." (MALLET & WILLMOTT 2003 57).
> 
>  
> 
> "One can make a case with some justification as to whether the science
> of taxonomy is evolving fast enough in the face of the demands being
> placed upon it by the public and by government policy makers in
> connection with the so-called biodiversity crisis." (SCHRAM 2007: 23).
> 
>  
> 
> Thought to be no more than a service industry for endusers, such as
> ecologists, bioinformatists and conservationists, taxonomy has been
> dumbed-down to that of a technology of a bygone era. This has created
> the image of dusty elitists cocooned in crumbling museums or as Luddites
> dismissing so-called 'progress' wholesale. With this increasing popular
> image in mind, taxonomy, as a scholarly pursuit, is undermined by what
> we refer to as an unwitting anti-intellectual movement within biological
> systematics. The movement uses "scientific" arguments to justify its use
> when in fact it is defying best practice.
> 
>  
> 
> Dr. John R. Grehan
> Director of Science and Research
> Buffalo Museum of Science
> 1020 Humboldt Parkway
> Buffalo, NY 14211-1193
> 
> email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
> Fax: (716) 897-6723
> 
> Panbiogeography
> http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php
> 
> Ghost moth research
> http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php
> 
> Human evolution and the great apes
> http://www.sciencebuff.org/human_origin_and_the_great_apes.php
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
 		 	   		  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list