Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Essay
  • Published:
Evolutionary Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AMNAT (Org.) (2006). Biodiversity—the megascience in focus. Outcomes and recommendations. Organized by Associação Memoria Naturalis, Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional.

  • Barrett, R. D. H., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2005). Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83(3), 481–491.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blaxter, M. L. (2004). The promise of a DNA taxonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 669–679.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buckup, P., Menezes, N. A. & Ghazzi, M. (Eds.) (2007). Catálogo das Espécies de Peixes de Água Doce do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional.

  • de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., de Vivo, M., de Toledo-Piza, M., Menezes, N. A., de Figueiredo, J. L., Castro, R. M. C., Gill, A. C., McEachran, J. D., Compagno, L. J. V., Schelly, R. C., Britz, R., Lundberg, J. G., Vari, R. P., & Nelson, G. (2005). Revisiting the taxonomic impediment. Science, 307, 353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., Brandão, C. R. F, de Vivo, M., de Figueiredo, J. L., Britski, H. A., de Pinna, M. C. C., Menezes, N. A., Marques, F. P. L., Papavero, N., Cancello, E. M., Crisci, J. V., McEachran, J. D., Schelly, R. C., Lundberg, J. G., Gill, A. C., Britz, R., Wheeler, Q. D., Stiassny, M. L. J., Parenti, L. R., Page, L. M., Wheeler, W. C., Faivovich, J., Vari, R. P., Grande, L., Humphries, C. J., DeSalle, R., Ebach, M. C., & Nelson, G. J. (2007). Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evolutionary Biology, 3/4, 140–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotterill, F. P. D. (1995). Systematics, biological knowledge and environmental conservation. Biodiversity & Conservation, 4, 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisci, J. V. (2006a). One-dimensional systematists: Perils in a time of steady progress. Systematic Botany, 31(1), 215–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisci, J. V. (2006b). Making taxonomy visible. Systematic Botany, 31(2), 439–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. (2003). Natural history collections in crisis as funding is slashed. Nature, 423, 575.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeSalle, R. (2006). Species discovery versus species identification in DNA barcoding efforts: Response to Rubinoff. Conservation Biology, 20(5), 1545–1547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeSalle, R., Giribet, G. & Wheeler, W. C. (Eds.) (2002). Molecular systematics and evolution: Theory and practice. Berlin: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSalle, R., Egan, M. G., & Siddall, M. (2005). The unholy trinity: Taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 360, 1905–1916.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ebach, M. C., & Holdrege, C. (2005). DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy. Nature, 434, 697.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ennos, R. A., French, G. C., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (2005). Conserving taxonomic complexity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(4), 164–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eschmeyer, W. N., & Froese, R. (1999). The statistics of ichthyology. Abstracts of the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (p. 99). University Park: Penn State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evenhuis, N. L. (2007). Helping solve the “other” taxonomic impediment: completing the eight steps to total enlightenment and taxonomic Nirvana. Zootaxa, 1407, 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1977). On the phenetic approach to vertebrate classification. In: Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C. & Hecht, B. M. (Eds.), Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, no. 14 (pp. 823–850). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1979). The information content of the phylogenetic system. Systematic Zoology, 28, 483–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1983). The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In: Platnick, N. I. & Funk, V. (Eds.), Advances in cladistics 2 (pp. 7–36). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowers, R. W. (2007a). Comments on “Helping solve the ‘other’ taxonomic impediment: Completing the eight steps to total enlightenment and taxonomic Nirvana” by Evenhuis (2007). Zootaxa, 1494, 67–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowers, R. W. (2007b). Taxonomy’s unexamined impediment. The Systematist, 28, 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forest, F., Grenyer, R., Rouget, M., Davies T. J., Cowling, R. M., Faith, D. P., Balmford, A., Manning, J. C., Proches, S., van der Bank, M., Reeves, G., Hedderson, T. A. J., & Savolainen, V. (2007). Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots. Nature, 445, 757–760.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garland T., Bennett, A. F., & Rezende, E. L. (2005). Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 208, 3015–3035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston, K. J., & O’Neill, M. A. (2004). Automated species identification: Why not? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 655–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H. C. J. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417, 17–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H. C. J. (2007). Linnaeus in the information age. Nature, 446, 259–260.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H. C. J., & Knapp, S. (2004). Introduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 559–569.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli, N. J. (2004). A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 585–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, T., Faivovich, J., & Pol, D. (2003). The perils of ‘point-and-click’ systematics. Cladistics, 19, 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gropp, R. E. (2003). Are university natural science collections going extinct? BioScience, 5, 550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gropp, R. E. (2004). Threatened species: University natural science collections in the United States. Systematics & Biodiversity, 1(3), 285–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & deWaard, J. R. (2003). Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 313–321.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janzen, D. H. (2004). Now is the time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 731–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, S., Bateman, R. M., Chalmers, N. R., Humphries, C. J., Rainbow, P. S., Smith, A. B., Taylor, P. D., Vane-Wright, R. I., & Wilkinson, M. (2002). Taxonomy needs evolution, not revolution. Nature, 419, 559.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Landrum, L. R. (2001). What has happened to descriptive systematics? What would make it thrive? Systematic Botany, 26(2), 438–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipscomb, D., Platnick, N., & Wheeler, Q. (2003). The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 65–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löbl, I., & Leschen, R. A. B. (2005). Demography of coleopterists and their thoughts on DNA barcoding and the Phylocode, with commentary. Coleoptera Bulletin, 59, 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, J. A. (2002). The role of taxonomy in conserving biodiversity. Journal of Nature Conservation, 10, 145–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, R., & Dikow, T. (2004). The significance of specimen databases from taxonomic revisions for estimating and mapping global species diversity of invertebrates and repatriating reliable specimen data. Conservation Biology, 18(2), 478–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005). DNA barcoding: Error rates based on comprehensive sampling. PloS Biology, 3(12), 2229–2238.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. E. (2007). DNA barcoding and the renaissance of taxonomy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(12), 4775–4776.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, G. J. P., Ryburn, J. A., Fedrigo, O., & López, J. A. (2005). Phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of modern elasmobranchs. In: Hamlett, W. C. (Eds.), Reproductive biology and phylogeny of Chondrichthyes (pp. 1–26). Enfield: Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G. (2004). Cladistics: Its arrested development. In: Williams, D. M. & Forey, P. L. (Eds.), Milestones in systematics: The development of comparative biology, (pp. 127–147). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G., & Platnick, N. (1981). Systematics and biogeography, cladistics and vicariance. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. S. (2006). Fishes of the world (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimenta, B. V. S., Haddad, C. F. B., Nascimento, L. B., Cruz, C. A. G., & Pombal, J. P., Jr. (2005). Comment on “Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide”. Science, 309, 1999b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendini, L. (2005). Comments on “identifying spiders through DNA barcodes”. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83(3), 498–504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., & Brooks, T. (2005). Phylogeny and conservation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, P. H. (2004). Taxonomy: Where are we now? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 729–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, R. E., Kullander, S. O. & Ferraris, C. J., Jr. (Eds.) (2003). Check-list of the freshwater fishes from South and Central America. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O. C. (1988). Fundamentals of comparative biology. Basel: Birhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodman, J. E., & Cody, J. H. (2003). The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF’s partnerships for enhancing expertise in taxonomy (PEET) as a model. Systematic Biology, 52(3), 428–435.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sabaj, M. H., Armbruster, J. W., Ferraris, Jr., C. J., Friel, J. P., Lundberg, J. G. & Page, L. M. (2003). The all catfish species inventory (Eds.). Internet address: http://silurus.acnatsci.org/.

  • Santos, C. M. D., & Amorim, D. S. (2007). Why biogeographical hypotheses need a well supported phylogenetic framework: A conceptual evaluation. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, 47(4), 63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidly, D. J. (2005). What it means to be a naturalist and the future of natural history at American universities. Journal of Mammalogy, 86(3), 449--456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scotland, R., Hughes, C., Bailey, D., & Wortley, A. (2003). The big machine and the much-maligned taxonomist. Systematics & Biodiversity, 1(2), 139–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seberg, O., Humphries, C. J., Knapp, S., Stevenson, D. W., Petersen, G., Scharff, N., & Andersen, N. M. (2003). Shortcuts in systematics? A commentary on DNA-based taxonomy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 63–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiassny, M. L. J. (1992). Phylogenetic analysis and the role of systematics in the biodiversity crisis. In: Eldredge, N. (Ed.), Systematics, ecology and the biodiversity crisis (pp. 109–120). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiassny, M. L. J., & de Pinna, M. C. C. (1994). Basal taxa and the role of cladistic patterns in the evaluation of conservation priorities: A view from freshwater. In: Forey, P. L., Humphries, C. J., & Vane-Wright, R. I. (Eds.), Systematics and conservation evaluation (pp. 235–249). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, A. V., & Tsutsui, N. D. (2004). The value of museum collections for research and society. BioScience, 54(1), 66–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H., & Vogler, A. P. (2002). DNA points the way ahead in taxonomy. Nature, 418, 479.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H., & Vogler, A. P. (2003). A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 70–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiele, K., & Yeates, D. (2002). Tension arises from duality at the heart of taxonomy. Nature, 419, 337.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. I. (1996). Systematics and the conservation of biological diversity. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 83, 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vari, R. P. (1991). Systematics of the neotropical characiform genus Steindachnerina Fowler (Pisces: Ostariophysi). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 507, 1–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q. D. (2004). Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 571–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q. D. (2005). Losing the plot: DNA “barcodes” and taxonomy. Cladistics, 21(4), 405–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q. D. (2007). Invertebrate systematics or spineless taxonomy? In: Zhang, Z. -Q. & Shear, W. A. (Eds.), Linnaeus tercentenary: Progress in invertebrate taxonomy, Zootaxa, 1668, pp. 11–18.

  • Wheeler, Q. D., & Meier, R. (Eds.) (2000). Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A debate. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q. D., & Platnick, N. (2000). The phylogenetic species concept (sensu Wheeler and Platnick). In: Wheeler, Q. D. & Meier, R. (Eds.), Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A debate (pp. 55–69). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q. D., Raven, P. H., & Wilson, E. O. (2004). Taxonomy: Impediment or expedient? Science, 303, 285.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Will, K. W., & Rubinoff, D. (2004). Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics, 20(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (2003a). The encyclopedia of life. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (2003b). Pheidole in the new world: A dominant, hyperdiverse ant genus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (Fapesp) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). We thank numerous colleagues for discussing the issues here presented, in particular Bob Schelly and Jorge Crisci, as well as one anonymous reviewer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão, Trav. 14, no. 101, São Paulo, SP, 05508-900, Brazil

    Marcelo R. de Carvalho

  2. Departamento de Biologia, FFCLRP, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-901, Brazil

    Flávio A. Bockmann & Dalton S. Amorim

  3. Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Nazaré 481, São Paulo, SP, 04263-000, Brazil

    Carlos Roberto F. Brandão

Authors
  1. Marcelo R. de Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Flávio A. Bockmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dalton S. Amorim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carlos Roberto F. Brandão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo R. de Carvalho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Carvalho, M.R., Bockmann, F.A., Amorim, D.S. et al. Systematics must Embrace Comparative Biology and Evolution, not Speed and Automation. Evol Biol 35, 150–157 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-008-9018-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-008-9018-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation