Loosing the connection between the observation and the specimen: a by-product of the digital era or a trend inherited from general biology?

The original efforts of early naturalists are now placed in another context. Instead of adding lots of particulars to a catalogue of Life, the idea is now to contribute to an organized picture: comparative biology and general biology have merged. Systematics or the related sciences of Biodiversity employ a reasoning analogous to the one followed by early general biology when it separated from natural history and activities associated with collections in the early XX th century. There is a presumption one is already knowledgeable about laws or general patterns when studying biological processes or adding species: both contribute to the general picture. As a consequence of this state of mind, many authors do not feel the need for saving specimens. However, saving specimens is not only a way to keep records in a world which is still being discovered, it is also a very efficient way to store information and to allow one to return to the original specimens, thus generating additional data to answer other questions. We must be fully aware of both the rationale but also the present-day state of mind, in order to keep our motivation in the pursuit of an adequate sampling of Biodiversity.

[1]  U. Jondelius,et al.  Phylogenies without roots? A plea for the use of vouchers in molecular phylogenetic studies. , 2008, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[2]  S. Marshall,et al.  New species without dead bodies: a case for photo-based descriptions, illustrated by a striking new species of Marleyimyia Hesse (Diptera, Bombyliidae) from South Africa , 2015, ZooKeys.

[3]  Aurélien Miralles,et al.  The integrative future of taxonomy , 2010, Frontiers in Zoology.

[4]  Amy,et al.  CONTENT ASSESSMENT OF THE PRIMARY BIODIVERSITY DATA PUBLISHED THROUGH GBIF NETWORK : STATUS , CHALLENGES AND POTENTIALS , 2013 .

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

[6]  M. R. Carvalho,et al.  Systematics must Embrace Comparative Biology and Evolution, not Speed and Automation , 2008, Evolutionary Biology.

[7]  A. Mooers,et al.  Sibley and Ahlquist's tapestry dusted off , 1994 .

[8]  D. R. Robertson,et al.  Specimen collection: an essential tool. , 2014, Science.

[9]  G J Nelson,et al.  Outline of a theory of comparative biology. , 1970, Systematic zoology.

[10]  R. Jenner Unburdening evo-devo: ancestral attractions, model organisms, and basal baloney , 2006, Development Genes and Evolution.

[11]  Systematics Agenda 2020: The Mission Evolves , 2012, Systematic biology.

[12]  M. Gaudeul,et al.  The French Muséum national d’histoire naturelle vascular plant herbarium collection dataset , 2017, Scientific Data.

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

[14]  M. Couri,et al.  On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy , 2016 .

[15]  J. P. Collins,et al.  Avoiding (Re)extinction , 2014, Science.

[16]  D. Faith,et al.  The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics in Conservation Biology: Linking Biodiversity and Society , 2016 .

[17]  A. Dubois,et al.  Does nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species or subspecies require the deposition of vouchers in collections , 2007 .

[18]  Tomorrow's taxonomy: collecting new species in the field will remain the rate-limiting step. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[19]  Eliécer E. Gutiérrez,et al.  Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences. , 2016, Zootaxa.