Why limit it to systematics? Universities are increasingly being less dominated by animal and plant ecologists and zoologists/botanists and increasingly replaced by those who study systems, processes, and big-picture events. The problem is that it is just as important to recognize the big picture and to understand the system or process as it is to understand its biotic components. IF we are limit our understanding of diversity to a set of mathematic equations, biochemical reactions, or complex networks of interactions the organisms become inconsequential. We haven't even named a huge number of species, and for those that are named, we know hardly anything of their life history. If you think that taxonomy is under-funded.....try taking a look at descriptive life history studies, and yet the descriptive life history is the foundation for modern conservation.
Malcolm On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Stefan Sommer <stefan.som...@nau.edu> wrote: > Dear All, > > Unfortunately, as suggested by Malcolm and many others, there simply are not > enough working taxonomists to cover the earth's biological diversity. NSF has > recognized this and tried to fund taxonomical work over the years, but > Departments often let their taxonomist positions go. We each need to look > into our own Departments and ask how many taxonomists/systematists are on > staff. Then ask ourselves how hard have we pushed for such positions within > our Departments/institutions. > > Fortunately there are many biological collections and these will become ever > more valuable as we continue to lose species and alter species through > climate change and other processes. If the taxonomy isn't currently worked > out, there is still a chance that it can be worked out retrospectively > through morphological and/or genetic analyses of properly documented > specimens. > > Cheers? > > Stefan > > > > Dr. Stefan Sommer > Director, Colorado Plateau Biodiversity Center, http://www.mpcer.nau.edu/cpbc > Executive Producer, A River Reborn, http://www.mpcer.nau.edu/riverreborn > Faculty Advisor, Grand Canyon SEEDS Chapter, http://www.mpcer.nau.edu/seeds > Board of Directors, Assoc. of Academic Museums & Galleries, > http://www.aamg-us.org > Faculty, Department of Biological Sciences > Northern Arizona University > Campus Box 5640 > Flagstaff, AZ 86011 > > O: (928) 523-4463 > F: (928) 523-7500 > > stefan.som...@nau.edu > ________________________________________ > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] on behalf of Wayne Tyson [landr...@cox.net] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:33 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] errors in ecology due to bad taxonomy > > 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" <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > 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 <a...@coho.net> 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:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum >> Sent: Wednesday, 29 September, 2010 15:00 >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> 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 <landr...@cox.net> 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" >>> <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> >>> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >>> 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 > -- 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.
