Advertisement

Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 309–311 | Cite as

Pragmatism and Rigour can Coexist in Taxonomy

  • H. C. J. Godfray
  • S. J. Mayo
  • M. J. Scoble
Essay

Two recent essays in this journal, de Carvalho et al. (2007; 2008), have questioned our writings on the role of web-based taxonomy in modern biodiversity science. We reply briefly here and argue that the commentaries misunderstand and misinterpret what we have written, something for which we must clearly take part of the blame.

de Carvalho et al. (2007) suggest that we believe that the problems in modern taxonomy are “mostly due to the lack of an adequate cyberstructure to disseminate its much needed products”; that professional taxonomists have “grown accustomed to being labelled not only as mere ‘service providers’ for the biological sciences, but ones that are becoming irrelevant due to obsolescence”. Our writing and that of others “reveals a traditional misunderstanding that regularly emanates from the more ‘applied’ side of biology”, an “‘end-user’ attitude”, unaware that taxa “are notmere end-products—they are hypotheses of relationships”, we are “not familiar with the...

Keywords

Pragmatic Argument Current Taxonomy Relative Small Size Modern Taxonomy Century Nomenclatural Problem 
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. de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., & Brandao, C. R. F. (2008). Systematics must embrace comparative biology and evolution, not speed and automation. Evolutionary Biology, 35, 150–157. doi: 10.1007/s11692-008-9018-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., Brandao, C. R. F., de Vivo, M., de Figueiredo, J. L., et al. (2007). Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evolutionary Biology, 34, 140–143. doi: 10.1007/s11692-007-9011-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Godfray, H. C. J. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417, 17–19. doi: 10.1038/417017a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Godfray, H. C. J. (2007). Linnaeus in the information age. Nature, 446, 259–260. doi: 10.1038/446259a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Godfray, H. C. J., Clark, B. R., Kitching, I. J., Mayo, S. J., & Scoble, M. J. (2007). The Web and the structure of taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 56, 943–955. doi: 10.1080/10635150701777521.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Meier, R. (2008). DNA sequences in taxonomy: Opportunities and challenges. In Q. D. Wheeler (Ed.), The new taxonomy (pp. 95–128). London: Systematics Association.Google Scholar
  7. Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005). DNA barcoding: Error rates based on comprehensive sampling. PLoS Biology, 3, 2229–2238.Google Scholar
  8. Scoble, M. J., Clark, B. R., Godfray, H. C. J., Kitching, I. J., & Mayo, S. J. (2007). Revisionary taxonomy in a changing e-landscape. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 150, 305–317.Google Scholar
  9. Wheeler, Q. D. (2008). Introduction: Towards the new taxonomy. In Q. D. Wheeler (Ed.), The new taxonomy (pp. 1–18). London: Systematics Association.Google Scholar
  10. Wilson, E. O. (2003). The encyclopedia of life. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 77–80. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00040-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. C. J. Godfray
    • 1
  • S. J. Mayo
    • 2
  • M. J. Scoble
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Royal Botanic Gardens, KewRichmondUK
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyNatural History MuseumLondonUK

Personalised recommendations