Advertisement

Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 34, Issue 3–4, pp 140–143 | Cite as

Taxonomic Impediment or Impediment to Taxonomy? A Commentary on Systematics and the Cybertaxonomic-Automation Paradigm

  • Marcelo R. de Carvalho
  • Flávio A. Bockmann
  • Dalton S. Amorim
  • Carlos Roberto F. Brandão
  • Mário de Vivo
  • José L. de Figueiredo
  • Heraldo A. Britski
  • Mário C. C. de Pinna
  • Naércio A. Menezes
  • Fernando P. L. Marques
  • Nelson Papavero
  • Eliana M. Cancello
  • Jorge V. Crisci
  • John D. McEachran
  • Robert C. Schelly
  • John G. Lundberg
  • Anthony C. Gill
  • Ralf Britz
  • Quentin D. Wheeler
  • Melanie L. J. Stiassny
  • Lynne R. Parenti
  • Larry M. Page
  • Ward C. Wheeler
  • Julián Faivovich
  • Richard P. Vari
  • Lance Grande
  • Chris J. Humphries
  • Rob DeSalle
  • Malte C. Ebach
  • Gareth J. Nelson
Essay

In the year in which we celebrate the 300th anniversary of the birth of the two greatest naturalists of the 18th century, Carolus Linnaeus and Georges-Louis Leclerc (Comte de Buffon), a statement expounding the significance of modern taxonomy is timely, especially given the current demands stimulated by the ‘biodiversity crisis’ and by biologists and conservationists who require the availability of species names at an ever-increasing rate. Linnaeus and Buffon were arch-rivals who loathed each other but who have provided much of the foundation on which comparative biology subsequently flourished. But part of that foundation has increasingly been judged inadequate to meet the present challenge, undermining the success that taxonomy and systematics have had in general.

A case in point that highlights recent trends is yet another commentary on the current state of taxonomic science by H. C. J. Godfray (Godfray 2007). Godfray is a user of taxonomic end-products who has frequently been...

Keywords

Freshwater Fish Species Organismal Biology Voucher Identification Biodiversity Crisis Catfish Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agnarsson, I., & Kuntner, M. (2007). Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Systematic Biology, 56(3), 531–539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaxter, M. L. (2004). The promise of a DNA taxonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckup, P. A. et al. (2007). Catálogo das espécies de peixes de água doce do Brasil. Museu Nacional.Google Scholar
  4. Carvalho, M. R. de et al. (2005). Revisiting the taxonomic impediment. Science, 307, 353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crisci, J. V. (2006). One-dimensional systematists: perils in a time of steady progress. Systematic Botany, 31(1), 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeSalle, R. (2006). Species discovery versus species identification in DNA barcoding efforts: response to Rubinoff. Conservation Biology, 20(5), 1545–1547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebach, M. C., & Holdrege, C. (2005a). DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy. Nature, 434, 697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ebach, M. C., & Holdrege, C. (2005b). More taxonomy, not DNA barcoding. BioScience, 55(10), 822–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forest, F. et al. (2007). Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots. Nature, 445, 757–760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Godfray, H.C.J. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417, 17–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Godfray, H.C.J. (2007). Linnaeus in the information age. Nature, 446, 259–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Godfray, H.C.J., & Knapp, S. (2004). Introduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 559–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant, T. et al. (2003). The perils of ‘point-and-click’ systematics. Cladistics, 19, 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gropp, R.E. (2004). Threatened species: university natural science collections in the United States. Systematics and Biodiversity, 1, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lipscomb, D. et al. (2003). The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(2), 65–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meyer, C. P., & Paulay G. (2005). DNA barcoding: error rates based on comprehensive sampling. PLoS Biology, 3(12), 2229–2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, S. E. (2007). DNA barcoding and the renaissance of taxonomy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(12), 4775–4776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mooers, A. Ø. (2007). The diversity of biodiversity. Nature, 445, 717–718.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Purvis, A. et al. (2005). Phylogeny and Conservation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sabaj, M. H. et al. (2003). The All Catfish Species Inventory, http://silurus.acnatsci.org/
  23. Scotland, R. et al. (2003). The Big Machine and the much-maligned taxonomist. Systematics and Biodiversity, 1(2), 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tautz, D. et al. (2003). A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(2), 70–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wheeler, Q. D. (2004). Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 571–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo R. de Carvalho
    • 1
  • Flávio A. Bockmann
    • 2
  • Dalton S. Amorim
    • 2
  • Carlos Roberto F. Brandão
    • 3
  • Mário de Vivo
    • 3
  • José L. de Figueiredo
    • 3
  • Heraldo A. Britski
    • 3
  • Mário C. C. de Pinna
    • 3
  • Naércio A. Menezes
    • 3
  • Fernando P. L. Marques
    • 1
  • Nelson Papavero
    • 3
  • Eliana M. Cancello
    • 3
  • Jorge V. Crisci
    • 4
  • John D. McEachran
    • 5
  • Robert C. Schelly
    • 6
  • John G. Lundberg
    • 7
  • Anthony C. Gill
    • 8
  • Ralf Britz
    • 9
  • Quentin D. Wheeler
    • 8
  • Melanie L. J. Stiassny
    • 6
  • Lynne R. Parenti
    • 10
  • Larry M. Page
    • 11
  • Ward C. Wheeler
    • 12
  • Julián Faivovich
    • 13
  • Richard P. Vari
    • 10
  • Lance Grande
    • 14
  • Chris J. Humphries
    • 15
  • Rob DeSalle
    • 12
  • Malte C. Ebach
    • 16
  • Gareth J. Nelson
    • 17
  1. 1.Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de BiociênciasUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade de São PauloRibeirão PretoBrazil
  3. 3.Museu de ZoologiaUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Museo de La PlataPaseo del Bosque s/nLa PlataArgentina
  5. 5.Department of Wildlife & Fisheries SciencesTexas A & M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  6. 6.Department of IchthyologyAmerican Museum of Natural HistoryNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Department of IchthyologyThe Academy of Natural SciencesPhiladelphiaUSA
  8. 8.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  9. 9.Department of ZoologyThe Natural History MuseumLondonUK
  10. 10.Division of FishesNational Museum of Natural HistoryWashingtonUSA
  11. 11.Fish DivisionFlorida Museum of Natural HistoryGainesvilleUSA
  12. 12.Division of Invertebrate ZoologyAmerican Museum of Natural HistoryNew YorkUSA
  13. 13.Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de BiocienciasUniversidade Estadual PaulistaRio ClaroBrazil
  14. 14.Division of Collections and ResearchThe Field MuseumChicagoUSA
  15. 15.Department of BotanyThe Natural History MuseumLondonUK
  16. 16.Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-DahlemFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  17. 17.School of BotanyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations