Summary
The crisis facing the conservation of biodiversity is reflected in a parallel crisis in alpha taxonomy. On one hand, there is an acute need from government and non-government organisations for large-scale and relatively stable species inventories on which to build major biodiversity information systems. On the other, molecular information will have an increasingly important impact on the evidential basis for delimiting species and is likely to result in greater scientific debate and controversy on their circumscription. This paper argues that alpha-taxonomy built on the Internet (alpha e-taxonomy) can provide a key component of the solution. Two main themes are considered: (1) the potential of e-taxonomic revisions for engaging both the specialist taxonomic community and a wider public in gathering taxonomic knowledge and deepening understanding of it, and (2) why alpha-species will continue to play an essential role in the conventional definition of species and what kinds of methodological development this implies for descriptive species taxonomy. The challenges and requirements for sustaining e-taxonomic revisions in the long-term are discussed, with particular reference to models being developed by five initiatives with botanical exemplar websites: CATE (Creating a Taxonomic E-Science), Solanaceae Source, GrassBase and EDIT (European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy) exemplar groups and scratchpads. These projects give a clear indication of the crucially important role of the national and regional taxonomic organisations and their networks in providing both leadership and a fruitful and beneficial human and technical environment for taxonomists, both amateur and professional, to contribute their expertise towards a collective global enterprise.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berlin, B. (1973). Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4: 259 – 271.
Blaxter, M. L. (2004). The promise of a DNA taxonomy. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 359: 669 – 679.
____, Mann, J., Chapman, T., Thomas, F., Whitton, C., Floyd, R., Abebe, E. (2005). Defining operational taxonomic units using DNA barcode data. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 360: 1935 – 1943.
Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species and higher taxa. In: R. A. Wilson (ed.), Species: new interdisciplinary essays. Pp. 141 – 185. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Brummitt, R. K. (2001). World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, Edition 2. Plant Taxonomic Database Standards No. 2. Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Chase, M. W., Salamin, N., Wilkinson, M., Dunwell, J. M., Kesanakurthi, R. P., Haidar, N. & Savolainen, V. (2005). Land plants and DNA barcodes: short-term and long-term goals. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 360: 1889 – 1895.
Dallwitz, M. J. (1980). A general system for coding taxonomic descriptions. Taxon 29: 41 – 46.
____, Paine, T. A. & Zurcher, E. J. (1993 onwards). User's Guide to the DELTA System: a General System for Processing Taxonomic Descriptions. 4th edition. http://delta-intkey.com/
____, ____ & ____ (1995 onwards). User's Guide to INTKEY: a Program for Interactive Identification and Information Retrieval. 1st edition. http://delta-intkey.com/
Davis, P. H. & Heywood, V. H. (1963). Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.
Davis, J. I. & Nixon, K. (1992). Populations, genetic variation, and the delimitation of phylogenetic species. Syst. Zool. 41: 421 – 435.
De Ley, P., De Ley, I. T., Morris, K., Abebe, E., Mundo-Ocampo, M., Yoder, M., Heras, J., Waumann, D., Rocha-Olivares, A., Burr, A. H. J., Baldwin, J. G. & Thomas, W. K. (2005). An integrated approach to fast and informative morphological vouchering of nematodes for applications in molecular barcoding. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 360: 1945 – 1958.
de Queiroz, K. (1999). The general lineage concept of species and the defining properties of the species category. In: R. A. Wilson (ed.), Species: new interdisciplinary essays. Pp. 49 – 89. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
DeSalle, R. (2006). Species discovery versus species identification in DNA barcoding efforts: response to Rubinoff. Conserv. Biol. 20(5): 1545 – 1547.
Forey, P. L., Fortey, R. A., Kenrick, P. & Smith, A. B. (2004). Taxonomy and fossils: a critical appraisal. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 359: 639 – 653.
Gaston, K. J. & May R. M. (1992). The taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356: 281.
Godfray, H. C. J. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417: 17 – 19.
____ (2007). Linnaeus in the information age. Nature 446 (15 March 2007): 259 – 269.
____ & Knapp, S. (2004). Introduction. Theme Issue “Taxonomy for the twenty-first century”. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 359: 559 – 569.
____, Clark, B. R., Kitching, I. J., Mayo, S. J. & Scoble, M. J. (2007). The web and the structure of taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 56: 943 – 955.
Harman, K. T. (2007). GrassBase — Steps towards integrating the online world grass Flora. MSc Thesis. Cranfield University.
____ & Clayton, W. D. (2007). Recent developments in Kew’s grass databases (GrassBase). Kew Bull. 62: 375 – 379.
Harris, D. J. & Froufe, E. (2005). Taxonomic inflation: species concept or historical geopolitical bias? Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 6 – 7.
Hawking, S. (2002). On the shoulders of giants. Pp. 391 – 626. Running Press, Philadelphia.
Henderson, A. (2004). A multivariate analysis of Hyospathe (Palmae). Amer. J. Bot. 91: 953 – 965.
Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (1999). International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Fourth Edition). [http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp]
Isaac, N. J. B., Mallet, J. & Mace G. M. (2004). Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 464 – 469.
Janzen, D. H. (2004). Now is the time. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 359: 731 – 732.
____, Hajibabaei, M., Burns, J. M., Hallwachs, W., Remigio, E. & Hebert, P. D. N. (2005). Wedding biodiversity inventory of a large and complex Lepidoptera fauna with DNA barcoding. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 360: 1835 – 1845.
Judd, W. S., Campbell, C. S., Kellogg, E. A, Stevens, P. F. & Donoghue, M. J. (2002). Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach. 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Knapp, S., Nic Lughadha, E. & Paton, A. (2005). Taxonomic inflation, species concepts and global species lists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 7 – 8.
Lexer, C., Rosenthal, D. M., Raymond, O., Donovan, L. A. & Rieseberg, L. H. (2005). Genetics of species differences in the wild annual sunflowers, Helianthus annuus and H. petiolaris. Genetics 169: 2225 – 2239.
Lipscomb, D., Platnick, N. & Wheeler, Q. (2003). The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18(2): 65 – 66.
Mace, G. M. (2004). The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 359: 711 – 719.
Maddison, D. R., Swofford, D. L. & Maddison, W. P. (1997). NEXUS: An Extensible File Format for Systematic Information. Syst. Biol. 46: 590 – 621.
Mallet, J., Isaac, N. J. B. & Mace, G. M. (2005). Response to Harris and Froufe, and Knapp et al.: taxonomic inflation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 8 – 9.
Markmann, M. & Tautz, D. (2005). Reverse taxonomy: an approach towards determining the diversity of meiobenthic organisms based on ribosomal RNA signature sequences. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 360: 1917 – 1924.
McNeill, J., Barrie, F. R., Burdet, H. M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D. L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D. H., Prado, J., Silva, P. C., Skog, J. E., Wiersema, J. H., Turland, N. J. (2006). International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code). ARG Gantner Verlag, Ruggell, Liechtenstein.
Paton, A. J., Brummitt, N., Govaerts, R., Harman, K., Hinchcliffe, S., Allkin, R. & Nic Lughadha, E. (in press). Towards Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: a working list of all known plant species — progress and prospects. Taxon.
Pillon, Y. & Chase, M. W. (2006). Taxonomic exaggeration and its effects on orchid conservation. Conserv. Biol. 21: 263 – 265.
____, Fay, M. F., Shipunov, A. B. & Chase, M. W. (2006). Species diversity versus phylogenetic diversity: a practical study in the taxonomically difficult genus Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae). Biol. Conserv. 129: 4 – 13.
Pons, J., Barraclough, T., Gomez-Zurita, J., Cardoso, A., Duran, D., Hazell, S., Kamouon, S., Sumlin, W. & Vogler, A. (2006). Sequence-based species delimitation for the DNA taxonomy of undescribed insects. Syst. Biol. 55: 595 – 609.
Samper, C. (2004). Taxonomy and environmental policy. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 359: 721 – 728.
Savolainen, V., Cowan, R. S., Vogler, A. P., Roderick, G. K. & Lane, R. (2005). Towards writing the encyclopaedia of life: an introduction to DNA barcoding. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 360: 1805 – 1811.
Scoble, M. J. (2004). Unitary or unified taxonomy? Philos. Trans., Ser. B 359: 699 – 710.
____, Clark, B. R., Godfray, H. C. J., Kitching, I. J. & Mayo, S. J. (2007). Revisionary taxonomy in a changing e-landscape. Tijdschr. Entomol. 150: 305 – 317.
Scotland, R., Hughes, C., Bailey, D. & Wortley, A. (2003). The Big Machine and the much-maligned taxonomist. Syst. Biodivers. 1 (2): 139 – 143.
Smith, M. A, Fisher, B. L. & Hebert, P. D. N. (2005). DNA barcoding for effective biodiversity assessment of a hyperdiverse arthropod group: the ants of Madagascar. Philos. Trans., Ser. B 360: 1825 – 1834.
Soltis, D. E., Soltis, P. S., Endress, P. K. & Chase, M. W. (2005). Phylogeny and evolution of Angiosperms. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Stearn, W. T. (1992). Botanical Latin. Fourth Edition. Timber Press, Portland.
Stevens, P. F. (2007 onwards). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 8, June 2007 [and more or less continuously updated since]. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/.
Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H. & Vogler, A. P. (2003). A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18 (2): 70 – 74.
Yergeau, E., Filion, M., Vujanovic, V. & St-Arnaud, M. (2005). A PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis approach to assess Fusarium diversity in asparagus. J. Microbiol. Meth. 60: 143 – 154.
Zander, R. H. (2007). When biodiversity study and systematics diverge. Biodiversity 8: 43 – 48.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to two reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We are also very grateful for the financial support received from the UK Natural Environment Research Council, grant numbers NE//C001532/1; NE/C51588X/2; NE/C515871/1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mayo, S.J., Allkin, R., Baker, W. et al. Alpha e-taxonomy: responses from the systematics community to the biodiversity crisis. Kew Bull 63, 1–16 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12225-008-9014-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12225-008-9014-1