I suppose we all have anecdotes. I noticed a grass that didn't fit the key;
a couple of supposedly diagnostic characters implied that it didn't fit
either of the two recognized species that otherwise fit. I went to the type
locality and found even more variation. The local herbarium suggested that I
send a specimen to the author of the most recent revision (including
splitting the genus); I did, but said author didn't have time to work on it
and wrote a note back wishing me luck. I had already done all I could within
the realm of my competence, so I dropped it. A new curator recently assigned
the specimen to the species it most closely resembled, despite the specimen
having at least one character still considered diagnostic of another
recognized species, removing the question mark from the sheet (thus removing
the "flag" that might have induced other taxonomists to have a look. Time
was, herbarium sheets were festooned with corrections and notes; now they
will be nice and clean. The other variants I noticed near the type locality
remain, lumped under one species. Perhaps it's for the best, perhaps someday
some bright young upstart will discover the differences. Until then, a lot
of variation (in a "hot spot" no less) will remain lumped, and ecologists
will, depending upon the hierarchy of specialization, be led down a rocky
scholarly path in a region where two radically different geofloras collide,
a "super-ecotone" for want of a better term.
This kind of phenomenon is, of course, of little potential to those studying
climate change, eh?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] errors in ecology due to bad taxonomy
I have sent leeches to the Smithsonian several times and had no problem.
I suppose that these kinds of things happen. Curator's/collection
managers of collections, however, are often not experts in every
species they curate and they depend on experts working on those groups
to identify/verify the deposited specimens. Years ago, I worked on
cricket frogs from the Georgia State Museum and corrected the
identification on several mis-identified southern cricket frogs and
northern cricket frogs. This is especially a problem with
largely diverse groups and poorly studied groups with limited
investigators. If you find an invert, for example, that
appears to be a new species, it is probably best to approach a person
who is closely associated with that group and ask about coauthoring
the species description. Many of these large collections will have
many undescribed species logged into their register, many far outside
the staff's expertise.
Biodiversity is sufficiently large that expecting any one person or
small group of investigators to have expertise in all groups within a
class for vertebrates and certainly families for invertebrates is
practically insane! :)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Warren W. Aney <[email protected]> wrote:
It has been my experience that collecting a specimen and turning it in to
a
university museum collection for identification may not always work very
well. Four years ago I collected a specimen of a species of Vespericola
snail that I couldn't identify and sent this off to a malacologist. She
said it appeared to be a new species and turned the specimen over to an
Oregon State University collection staff for verification. I have checked
a
time or two with this facility, but it is not on their agenda for action.
Warren W. Aney
Tigard, Oregon
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum
Sent: Wednesday, 29 September, 2010 15:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] errors in ecology due to bad taxonomy
Generally, when a study is conducted you place a representative in a
museum collection and have an expert in that organism group verify the
identification. This is not needed with obvious species (White tailed
deer, &c), but when you start getting into inverts and lower
vertebrates it becomes pretty important because these groups are
continually under taxonomic upheaval.
Malcolm
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
Ecolog:
I very quickly scanned the paper; I may have erred in my interpretation,
so
please do not cascade my potential errors through the literature, gray or
otherwise. I also admit I found Bortolus a bit hard to follow. Maybe I
just
don't understand the particulars (and specific cases) as well as he does.
Is citation of the authority consulted sufficient? Once a paper is
published, even if its nomenclature is correct on the day it was written,
will this problem still arise when revisions are made by taxonomists?
Also,
it sometimes takes years before accepted changes make their way into
manuals. Does this mean that manuals are out of date upon publication? If
so, why publish them? Why cite them? (I am not being sarcastic.) Do
"wrong
assumptions" begin and end with taxonomy?
I certainly agree that errors do cascade with undesirable, even
disastrous
results. Is Bortolus onto something even bigger than failure to get
taxonomy
right all the time?
WT
PS: If there are "good" taxonomists, are there "bad" taxonomists? If so,
how
does the non-taxonomist distinguish between them? And, is there a sliding
scale of quality between those extremes?
"What is a species?" (Pers. comm., Karen Sausman, ca 1966) It's still a
good
question.
----- Original Message ----- From: "malcolm McCallum"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:45 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] errors in ecology due to bad taxonomy
If you have not read this paper yet, you should!!!
See below...
ERROR CASCADES IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES: THE UNWANTED CONSEQUENCES
OF USING BAD TAXONOMY IN ECOLOGY
2008. Ambio 37(2): 114-118
Alejandro Bortolus
Abstract: Why do ecologists seem to underestimate the consequences of
using bad taxonomy? Is it because the consequences of doing so have
not been yet scrutinized
well enough? Is it because these consequences are irrelevant? In this
paper I examine and discuss these questions, focusing on the fact that
because ecological works provide baseline information for many other
biological disciplines, they play a key role in spreading and
magnifying the abundance of a variety of conceptual and methodological
errors. Although overlooked and underestimated, this cascade-like
process originates
from trivial taxonomical problems that affect hypotheses and ideas,
but it soon shifts into a profound practical problem affecting our
knowledge about nature, as well as
the ecosystem structure and functioning and the efficiency of human
health care programs. In order to improve the intercommunication among
disciplines, I propose a
set of specific requirements that peer-reviewed journals should
request from all authors, and I also advocate for urgent institutional
and financial support directed at reinvigorating the formation of
scientific collections that integrate taxonomy and ecology.
*****
A pdf of this article is available from the CNAH PDF Library at
http://www.cnah.org/cnah_pdf.asp
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
Allan Nation
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10
05:37:00
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
Allan Nation
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
Allan Nation
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3168 - Release Date: 09/30/10
06:34:00
