Systematics must Embrace Comparative Biology and Evolution, not Speed and Automation

Systematists have come under a barrage of criticism because of the alleged inadequacy of the ‘traditional’ taxonomic paradigm to curb the ‘biodiversity crisis’ and expeditiously make available the products of systematic research—usually species names—to the professional biological ‘user’ community (including ecologists, physiologists, population geneticists, and conservationists). The accusations leveled on systematists range from being ‘slow’ to ‘incapable’ of furnishing these products at a rate considered (by users) appropriate, especially given that the professional systematic community is portrayed as being in stark decline while operating in a quickly deteriorating natural world. Some of the critics have proposed solutions to this ‘taxonomic impediment’ in the form of a triumvirate adjoining a unitary taxonomic cyberstructure + automated DNA barcoding + molecular phylogeny, which we consider to be nothing but a threefold miopia; one critic has even gone as far as to suggest that biologists who need systematists can circumvent this dependency by ‘doing systematics themselves’. The application of a quick-fix, ‘automated-pragmatist’ model is antithetical to a science endowed with a strong epistemological and theoretical foundation. We view the current propaganda in favor of automation and pragmatism in systematics as a distraction from the real issues confronting systematists, who must do more to impede the current trend that has ‘marginalized’ organismal biology in general. Simply increasing the rate of species descriptions, as suggested by critics, will not ameliorate the ‘crisis’—taxa that correspond to incorrect hypotheses of biological entities (i.e. that are not monophyletic) will compromise the reliability of systematic information. Systematists must therefore provide more than ‘binomials’—they must strive to produce vigorous hypotheses of comparative biology that are historical and theory-rich in order to augment the general reference system that is so critical to research in other biological sciences and conservation.

[1]  Rob DeSalle,et al.  The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  N. Platnick,et al.  The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy , 2003 .

[3]  W. Hennig Phylogenetic Systematics , 2002 .

[4]  C. Haddad,et al.  Comment on "Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide" , 2005, Science.

[5]  T. Garland,et al.  Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology , 2005, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[6]  J. Farris On the Phenetic Approach to Vertebrate Classification , 1977 .

[7]  H. Godfray Challenges for taxonomy , 2002, Nature.

[8]  R. DeSalle,et al.  Taxonomic Impediment or Impediment to Taxonomy? A Commentary on Systematics and the Cybertaxonomic-Automation Paradigm , 2007, Evolutionary Biology.

[9]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[10]  S. Miller DNA barcoding and the renaissance of taxonomy , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  Invertebrate systematics or spineless taxonomy , 2007 .

[12]  Systematics and the Conservation of Biological Diversity , 1996 .

[13]  J. Farris The Logical Basis of Phylogenetic Analysis , 2004 .

[14]  Richard Grenyer,et al.  Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots , 2007, Nature.

[15]  L. Prendini Comment on "Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes" , 2005 .

[16]  I. Löbl,et al.  Demography of Coleopterists and Their Thoughts on DNA Barcoding and the Phylocode, with Commentary , 2005 .

[17]  O. Rieppel Fundamentals of comparative biology , 1988 .

[18]  J. Mcneely The role of taxonomy in conserving biodiversity , 2002 .

[19]  C. Marshall Encyclopedia of Life , 2008 .

[20]  J. S. Nelson,et al.  Fishes of the world. , 1978 .

[21]  R. Vari Systematics of the Neotropical characiform genus Cyphocharax Fowler (Pisces:Ostariophysi) , 1992 .

[22]  R. M. Hutchins THE VALUE OF THE MUSEUM. , 1943, Science.

[23]  J. Crisci,et al.  One-Dimensional Systematist: Perils in a Time of Steady Progress , 2006 .

[24]  N. Evenhuis Helping Solve the “ Other ” Taxonomic Impediment : Completing the Eight Steps to Total Enlightenment and Taxonomic Nirvana , 2007 .

[25]  H. Fowler,et al.  Pheidole in the New World: A Dominant, Hyperdiverse Ant Genus , 2005 .

[26]  R. Vari Systematics of the neotropical characiform genus Steindachnerina Fowler (Pisces: Ostariophysi) , 1991 .

[27]  Rudolf Meier,et al.  Species concepts and phylogenetic theory : a debate , 2000 .

[28]  H. Godfray,et al.  Introduction. Taxonomy for the twenty-first century. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[29]  J. Rodman,et al.  The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF's Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) as a model. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[30]  Gareth Nelson,et al.  Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance , 1981 .

[31]  W. F. Blair,et al.  Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. , 1978 .

[32]  A. Suarez,et al.  The Value of Museum Collections for Research and Society , 2004 .

[33]  H. Godfray,et al.  Linnaeus in the information age , 2007, Nature.

[34]  Alessandro Minelli,et al.  DNA points the way ahead in taxonomy , 2002, Nature.

[35]  Torsten Dikow,et al.  Significance of Specimen Databases from Taxonomic Revisions for Estimating and Mapping the Global Species Diversity of Invertebrates and Repatriating Reliable Specimen Data , 2004 .

[36]  M. Blaxter The promise of a DNA taxonomy. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[37]  R. Dalton Natural history collections in crisis as funding is slashed , 2003, Nature.

[38]  F. Cotterill,et al.  Systematics, biological knowledge and environmental conservation , 1995, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[39]  M. O'Neill,et al.  Automated species identification: why not? , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[40]  G. Naylor,et al.  Phylogenetic Relationships among the Major Lineages of Modern Elasmobranchs , 2004 .

[41]  N. Platnick,et al.  Advances in cladistics , 1983 .

[42]  J. J. Day,et al.  Fishes of the World, 4th Edition , 2006 .

[43]  R. Gropp Perspectives threatened species: University natural science collections in the United States , 2004 .

[44]  Gareth Nelson,et al.  Revisiting the Taxonomic Impediment , 2005, Science.

[45]  Malte C. Ebach,et al.  DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy , 2005, Nature.

[46]  Paul D. N. Hebert,et al.  Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes , 2005 .

[47]  P. Raven,et al.  Taxonomy: Impediment or Expedient? , 2004, Science.

[48]  C. Meyer,et al.  DNA Barcoding: Error Rates Based on Comprehensive Sampling , 2005, PLoS biology.

[49]  L. Landrum What has Happened to Descriptive Systematics? What Would Make it Thrive? , 2009 .

[50]  P. Hollingsworth,et al.  Conserving taxonomic complexity. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[51]  R. Wills Flowers,et al.  Comments on “Helping Solve the ‘Other’ Taxonomic Impediment: Completing the Eight Steps to Total Enlightenment and Taxonomic Nirvana ” by Evenhuis (2007) , 2007 .

[52]  C. Humphries,et al.  Shortcuts in systematics? A commentary on DNA-based taxonomy , 2003 .

[53]  J. Crisci Making Taxonomy Visible , 2006 .

[54]  K. Will,et al.  Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification , 2004, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[55]  Naércio A. Menezes,et al.  Catálogo das espécies de peixes de água doce do Brasil , 2007 .

[56]  Diego Pol,et al.  The perils of ‘point-and-click’ systematics , 2003 .

[57]  C. M. D. Santos,et al.  Why biogeographical hypotheses need a well supported phylogenetic framework: a conceptual evaluation , 2007 .

[58]  E. Wilson The encyclopedia of life , 2003 .

[59]  R. DeSalle Species Discovery versus Species Identification in DNA Barcoding Efforts: Response to Rubinoff , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[60]  G. Nelson,et al.  A globalization of taxonomy, like its economic cousin, may negatively affect taxonomiic research where it is most needed - in developing nations, which should have a greater stake in biodiversity - related profits , 2004 .

[61]  Nicholas J Gotelli,et al.  A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[62]  H Martin,et al.  Now is the time. , 1966, The Nova Scotia medical bulletin.

[63]  Industry Education The unholy trinity , 1979 .

[64]  James S. Farris,et al.  The Information Content of the Phylogenetic System , 1979 .

[65]  W. Burgess CHECK LIST OF THE FRESHWATER FISHES OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA , 2004, Copeia.

[66]  Joel Waldfogel,et al.  Introduction , 2010, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[67]  D. Tautz,et al.  A plea for DNA taxonomy , 2003 .

[68]  Robert D. Gordon,et al.  Systematic review to the genus Liothorax (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea: Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae) , 2007 .

[69]  Peter L. Forey,et al.  Systematics and conservation evaluation , 1994 .

[70]  N. Eldredge Systematics, ecology, and the biodiversity crisis , 1992 .

[71]  R. Gropp Are University Natural Science Collections Going Extinct? , 2003 .

[72]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  Losing the plot: DNA “barcodes” and taxonomy , 2005, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[73]  A. Wortley,et al.  The big machine and the much‐maligned taxonomist DNA taxonomy and the web , 2003 .

[74]  D. Schmidly,et al.  WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A NATURALIST AND THE FUTURE OF NATURAL HISTORY AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES , 2005 .

[75]  G. Nelson Cladistics: Its Arrested Development , 2004 .

[76]  Andy Purvis,et al.  Phylogeny and Conservation , 2009 .

[77]  P. Raven Taxonomy: where are we now? , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[78]  Gonzalo Giribet,et al.  Molecular Systematics and Evolution: Theory and Practice , 2002, EXS 92.