Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again

Abstract

Recent commentary by Costello and collaborators on the current state of the global taxonomic enterprise attempts to demonstrate that taxonomy is not in decline as feared by taxonomists, but rather is increasing by virtue of the rate at which new species are formally named. Having supported their views with data that clearly indicate as much, Costello et al. make recommendations to increase the rate of new species descriptions even more. However, their views appear to rely on the perception of species as static and numerically if not historically equivalent entities whose value lie in their roles as "metrics". As such, their one-dimensional portrayal of the discipline, as concerned solely with the creation of new species names, fails to take into account both the conceptual and epistemological foundations of systematics. We refute the end-user view that taxonomy is on the rise simply because more new species are being described compared with earlier decades, and that, by implication, taxonomic practice is a formality whose pace can be streamlined without considerable resources, intellectual or otherwise. Rather, we defend the opposite viewpoint that professional taxonomy is in decline relative to the immediacy of the extinction crisis, and that this decline threatens not just the empirical science of phylogenetic systematics, but also the foundations of comparative biology on which other fields rely. The allocation of space in top-ranked journals to propagate views such as those of Costello et al. lends superficial credence to the unsupportive mindset of many of those in charge of the institutional fate of taxonomy. We emphasize that taxonomy and the description of new species are dependent upon, and only make sense in light of, empirically based classifications that reflect evolutionary history; homology assessments are at the centre of these endeavours, such that the biological sciences cannot afford to have professional taxonomists sacrifice the comparative and historical depth of their hypotheses in order to accelerate new species descriptions.

Optimising Capture Methods for the Evaluation of Parasitoid Wasp Diversity

“…In addition, maintaining separate voucher collections of morphospecies is viewed as a wasteful duplication of effort that exacerbates work for the taxonomist instead of easing the impediments under which they currently work (Brower, 1995;de Carvalho et al, 2008). There is a lack of the necessary training resources to shift the cost-benefit ratio in favour of a 'morphospecies' approach, meaning that casual technicians are more likely to make mistakes, and are less invested in the project outcome than properly trained taxon specialists (de Carvalho et al, 2014). "Every specimen added to a collection from this point forward should be done in a way that is part of the solution and not part of the problem" (Wheeler et al, 2012, p.11).…”

“…As a comparative, hypothesis-driven science, taxonomy involves the continual revision of biological classifications in order to reflect new data produced through updated analytical methods (de Carvalho et al, 2014;Sluys, 2013). Revisions reflect the fact that organisms are not classified in a vacuum, but rather that their descriptions are in fact "highly selective account [s] of features that are found to be significant in comparison with related things" (Grimaldi & Engel, 2007, p.646).…”

“…The sustained, gradual decline of funding, expertise, and academic prestige associated with taxonomy is widely documented, and causing serious concern amongst international agencies and biodiversity scientists (Ebach et al, 2011;Agnarsson & Kuntner, 2007;de Carvalho et al, 2014;Wheeler, 2008b;Kim & Byrne, 2006). The secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2008) stated that although taxonomic information underpins an awareness of 46 biodiversity and drives policy decisions relating to its management, decades of decline have severely weakened taxonomic capability around the world.…”

“…For instance, the claim that "taxonomy provides opinions on species boundaries" is common (Godfray, 2007, p. 259), and so is the belief that taxonomists' primary duty is to provide species identification services to end-users (de Carvalho et al, 2014). The magnitude of prejudices led Wheeler (2009b) to issue a 'taxonomic declaration of independence', to defend the epistemological basis of taxonomy, and to demand recognition of its value to society.…”

Editorial: The biodiversity of trematodes of fishes

“…Some (e.g. Costello et al, 2013a, b) argue that ''taxonomic effort has never been greater'' and that taxonomy is thriving, whereas others disagree vehemently (Mora et al, 2013;Bebber et al, 2014;De Carvalho et al, 2014). Examination of the chart of authors describing most species of trematodes during the last 16 years generated by the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS, 2015) is instructive.…”