Is classical taxonomy obsolete?

Alves, Ruy José Válka; Machado, Marcelo Dias; Filho, Vianna

doi:10.1002/tax.562001

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many papers have been dedicated to the decline of the morphological approach and the possible solutions proposed for consolidating the role of taxonomy in discovering biodiversity (Boero 2001;Giangrande 2003;Wilson 2004;Válka Alves and Machado 2007;Ebach et al 2011;Pearson et al 2011;Tahseen 2014). However, despite the ascertained importance of the morphological approach, until now no studies have suggested improvements to the potential of morphological descriptions of marine benthic species or promoted standardised criteria to describe species and supply information about their ecological characteristics.…”

Section: The Major Gaps In Morphological Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of applying Standardised Integrative Taxonomy when describing marine benthic organisms and collecting ecological data

Camillo

Gravili

Vito

et al. 2018

Invert. Systematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decline of morphologically based taxonomy is mainly linked to increasing species redundancy, which probably contributed to a worldwide disinterest in taxonomy, and to a reduction of funding for systematic biology and for expertise training. The present trend in the study of biodiversity is integrated taxonomy, which merges morphological and molecular approaches. At the same time, in many cases new molecular techniques have eclipsed the morphological approach. The application of Standardised Integrative Taxonomy, i.e. a rigorous, common method of description based on the integration between ecological and morphological characteristics, may increase the precision, accessibility, exploitability and longevity of the collected data, and favour the renaissance of taxonomy by new investments in biodiversity exploration.

show abstract

Section: The Major Gaps In Morphological Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of applying Standardised Integrative Taxonomy when describing marine benthic organisms and collecting ecological data

Camillo

Gravili

Vito

et al. 2018

Invert. Systematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778): his life, philosophy and science and its relationship to modern biology and medicine

Reid

2009

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The system of binomial nomenclature and wider taxonomic paradigm forged by Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century came from his original approach to understanding the natural world. It was also a product of environmental, economic, social, cultural, political and theological influences of the time. For Linnaeus the identification, naming and classification of different kinds of animals, plants, diseases, fossils and rocks had practical as well as theoretical importance. In his life and work he clearly demonstrates the 'scientific approach' including careful information gathering, exploration, empiricism, dissection, accurate observations and published descriptions. There is an inspirational use of morphological characters in comparative diagnoses, a requirement for material evidence to support hypotheses and the systematic and hierarchical organisation of knowledge. However, techniques for specimen preservation and analysis were limited and sample sizes too small to properly characterise wild populations. Thus he bequeathed artificial and 'typological' more than biological concepts determined by form and pattern rather than process. Species and genera were regarded as fixed, objective entities. This is sometimes associated with the supposedly stultifying effects of Aristotelian essentialism on Linnaean and later taxonomy. 'Natural' classification, as far as developed, was not phyletic but, instead, reflected Wolffianism, a modified creationist doctrine. Nonetheless, Linnaeus was the first to formally recognise the close affinity between humans and primates, a controversial idea later fully developed by Charles Darwin. Even so, Linnaeus did not always distinguish between mythological versus real creatures and incredible versus credible hypotheses. His understanding of 'cause and effect' was circumscribed by prevailing Lutheran theology and Cartesian mechanistic philosophy. Linnaeus was as much a working physician, agriculturalist and land surveyor as he was a taxonomist. Contemporary economic biology and biotechnology are anticipated in his animal and plant breeding and pearl culturing experiments. In the great body of Linnaeus' letters, manuscripts and books are discernable foundations for many other later disciplines. These include: anthropology, biogeography, bioinformatics, biomechanics, biological control, conservation, ecology, epidemiology, Darwinian evolution, ethnography, medical diagnostics, microbiology, palaeontology, pharmacology and phylogenetic systematics.

show abstract

Plant Taxonomy: A Historical Perspective, Current Challenges, and Perspectives

Rouhan

Gaudeul

2020

Methods in Molecular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is classical taxonomy obsolete?

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

The importance of applying Standardised Integrative Taxonomy when describing marine benthic organisms and collecting ecological data

The importance of applying Standardised Integrative Taxonomy when describing marine benthic organisms and collecting ecological data

Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778): his life, philosophy and science and its relationship to modern biology and medicine

Plant Taxonomy: A Historical Perspective, Current Challenges, and Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About