Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The unappreciated, fundamentally analytical nature of taxonomy and the implications for the inventory of biodiversity

  • OPINION
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several ways have been suggested to improve the poor status of taxonomy as well as to overcome the taxonomic impediment and thus to speed up species discovery and documentation, such as: DNA barcoding, creation of databases of taxa and identification tools, online quantum contributions, standardization of morphological features, training of a new generation of taxonomists. The paper comments on the desirability and effectiveness of these presumed remedies. It is argued that the analytical, hypothesis-testing nature of taxonomic research is not well understood or appreciated and forms a major constraint on the rate of taxonomic descriptions. The various components of the taxonomic method, such as exploration, data, analysis, and results, interact in a complex manner that resembles the erratic, bouncing behaviour of a pinball machine. Species hypotheses probably are the most tested hypotheses in the natural sciences. The introduction of cybertaxonomy instrumentation and infrastructure will not alleviate the time-consuming, intrinsically analytical and hypothesis-testing process underlying the description and/or identification of each taxon. Long-term survival of the discipline of taxonomy, thus guaranteeing the future cumulative taxonomic output of amateurs and professionals, is endangered by a diminishing workforce of adequately trained professional systematists. The only way to increase the pace of a well-documented and scientifically useful taxic inventory of the world’s biodiversity is to increase the number of professional taxonomists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aanen DK, Kuyper TW (1999) Intercompatibility tests in the Hebeloma crustuliniforme complex in northwestern Europe. Mycologia 91:783–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnarsson I, Kuntner M (2007) Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Syst Biol 56:531–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bacher S (2012) Still not enough taxonomists: a reply to Joppa et al. Trends Ecol Evol 27:65–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ball IR (1980) Freshwater planarians from Colombia—a revision of Fuhrmann’s types. Bijdr Dierk 50:235–242

    Google Scholar 

  • BION (1993) Systematics: Biodiversity and Evolution – National Plan for Systematic Biology (Systematiek: Biodiversiteit en Evolutie: Nationaal Plan voor Systematische Biologie). Stichting voor Biologisch Onderzoek BION (NWO), p 59. (in Dutch)

  • Boykin LM, Armstrong K, Kubatko L, de Barro P (2012) DNA barcoding invasive insects: database roadblocks. Invert Syst 26:506–514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • California Academy of Sciences (2013). http://www.calacademy.org/sciencetoday/how-science-works/. Accessed 29 Jan 2013

  • Carpenter JM, Dvořák L, Jun-Kojima J-I, Nguyen LTP, Perrard A, Pickett KM (2011) Taxonomic notes on the Vespinae of Yunnan (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Am Mus Novit 3709:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chat J, Decroocq S, Petit RJ (2003) A one-step organelle capture: gynogenetic kiwifruits with paternal chloroplasts. Proc R Soc B 270:783–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costello MJ, Wilson S, Houlding B (2012) Predicting total global species richness using rates of species description and estimates of taxonomic effort. Syst Biol 61:871–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costello MJ, May RM, Stork NE (2013) Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct? Science 339:413–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Carvalho MR, Bockmann FA, Amorim DS, Brandão CRF, de Vivo M, de Figueiredo JL, Britski HA, de Pinna MCC, Menezes NA, Marques FPL, Papavero N, Cancello EM, Crisci JV, McEachran JD, Schelly RC, Lundberg JG, Gill AC, Britz R, Wheeler QD, Stiassny MLJ, Parenti LR, Page LM, Wheeler WC, Faivovich J, Vari RP, Grande L, Humphries CJ, DeSalle R, Ebach MC, Nelson GJ (2007) Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evol Biol 34:140–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deans AR, Yoder MJ, Balhoff JP (2012) Time to change how we describe biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 27:78–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dong D (2001) A new species of the Vespa Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) from Yunnan China. J Southwest Agric Univ 23:82–83 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong D, Wang Y (2003) Phylogeny of Vespa Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J Southwest Agric Univ 25:405–408 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong D, Wang Y, He Y, Wang R (2002) A new species of Vespula (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) from Yunnan China. J Southwest Agric Univ 24:396–397 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong D, Wang Y, He Y, Wang R (2004) A new species of the genus Vespula (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) from Nujiang of Yunnan Province. J Southwest Agric Univ 26:146–147 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong D, Liang X, Wang Y, He Y (2005) A new species of the genus Vespula (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) from Gongshan Yunnan, China. Entomotaxonomia 27:65–68 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew LW (2011) Are we losing the science of taxonomy? Bioscience 61:942–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebach MC, Valdecasas AG, Wheeler QD (2011a) Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy: accessibility and impact evaluation. Cladistics 27:550–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebach MC, de Carvalho MR, Nihei SS (2011b) Saving our science from ourselves: the plight of biological classification. Rev Bras Entomol 55:149–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine B, Perrard A, Bouchet P (2012a) 21 years of shelf life between discovery and description of new species. Curr Biol 22(22):R943–R944

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine B, van Achterberg K, Alonso-Zarazaga MA, Araujo R, Asche M et al (2012b) New species in the old World: Europe as a frontier in biodiversity exploration, a test bed for 21st century taxonomy. PLoS ONE 7(5):e366881. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.00366881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • France SC, Hoover LL (2002) DNA sequences of the mitochondrial COI gene have low levels of divergence among deep-sea octocorals (Cnidaria: Anthozoa). Hydrobiologia 471:149–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giam X, Scheffers BR, Sodhi NS, Wilcove DS, Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2011) Reservoirs of richness: least disturbed tropical forests are centres of undescribed species diversity. Proc R Soc B 279:67–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giangrande A (2003) Biodiversity, conservation, and the ‘Taxonomic Impediment’. Aquat Conserv 13:451–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray HC (2007) Linnaeaus in the information age. Nature 417:17–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant LJ, Sluys R, Blair D (2006) Biodiversity of Australian freshwater planarians (Platyhelminthes: Tricladida: Paludicola): new species and localities, and a review of paludicolan distribution in Australia. Syst Biodivers 4:435–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross M (2012) Barcoding biodiversity. Curr Biol 22(3):R73–R76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hebert PDN, Gregory TR (2005) The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Syst Biol 54:852–859

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel CG (1966) Philosophy of natural science. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins GW, Freckleton RP (2002) Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conserv 5:245–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2008) Systematics and taxonomy: followup 5th report session 2007–08 with evidence. TSO, London, p 330

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst GDD, Jiggins FM (2005) Problems with mitochondrial DNA as a marker in population, phylogeographic and phylogenetic studies: the effects of inherited symbionts. Proc R Soc B 272:1525–1534

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Joppa LN, Roberts DL, Pimm SL (2011a) The population ecology and social behaviour of taxonomists. Trends Ecol Evol 26:551–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joppa LN, Roberts DL, Pimm SL (2011b) How many species of flowering plants are there? Proc R Soc B 278:554–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski G (2008) Is the global conservation status assessment of a threatened taxon a utopia? Biodivers Conserv 17:445–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwong S, Srivathsan S, Meier R (2012) Update on DNA barcoding: low species coverage and numerous unidentified sequences. Cladistics 28:639–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lücking R (2008) Taxonomy: a discipline on the brink of extinction—are DNA barcode scanners the future of biodiversity research? Arch Sci 61:75–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison DR, Guralnick R, Hill A, Reysenbach A-L, McDade LA (2012) Ramping up biodiversity discovery via online quantum contributions. Trends Ecol Evol 27:72–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meier R (2008) DNA sequences in taxonomy—opportunities and challenges. In: Wheeler QD (ed) The new taxonomy. The systematics association special, vol Series., 76CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 95–127

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary MA, Kaufman S (2011) MorphoBank: phylophenomics in the ‘cloud’. Cladistics 27:529–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padial JM, de la Riva I (2007) Taxonomy, the Cinderella of science, hidden by its evolutionary stepsister. Zootaxa 1577:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Padial JM, de la Riva I (2010) A response to recent proposals for integrative taxonomy. Biol J Linn Soc 101:747–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platnick N (1979) Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Syst Zool 28:537–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitsma E (2012) A thousand and more stories in spirit (Duizend en meer verhalen op sterk water). Uitgeverij Noord-Holland, Wormer, p 320. (in Dutch)

  • Rodman JE, Cody JH (2003) The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF’s partnership for enhancing expertise in taxonomy (PEET) as a model. Syst Biol 52:428–435

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ross HH (1974) Biological systematics. Addison-Wesley Inc., Reading, p 345

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffers BR, Joppa LN, Pimm SL, Laurance WF (2012) What we know and don’t know about Earth’s missing biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 27:501–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM, Seifert B, Stauffer C, Christian E, Crozier RH (2010) Integrative taxonomy: a multisource approach to exploring biodiversity. Annu Rev Entomol 55:421–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S, Robert V, Spouge JL, Levesque CA, Chen W, Fungal Barcoding Consortium (2012) Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode marker for Fungi. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 199:6241–6246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scotland RW, Wood JRI (2012) Accelerating the pace of taxonomy. Trends Ecol Evol 27:415–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sereno P (2009) Comparative cladistics. Cladistics 25:624–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shearer TL, Van Oppen JH, Romano SL, Wörheide G (2002) Slow mitochondrial sequence evolution in the Anthozoa (Cnidaria). Mol Ecol 11:2475–2487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1961) Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York, pp XII + 247

  • Sluys R (2007) Annotations on freshwater planarians (Platyhelminthes Tricladida Dugesiidae) from the Afrotropical region. Tropical Zool 20:229–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluys R, Kawakatsu M (2001) Contribution to an inventory of the freshwater planarians of Australia and New Zealand (Platyhelminthes, Tricladida, Dugesiidae), with distribution maps of the species examined. Beaufortia 51:163–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegemann S, Keuthe M, Greiner S, Bock R (2013) Horizontal transfer of chloroplast genomes between plant species. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114076109

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor HR, Harris WE (2012) An emergent science on the brink of irrelevance: a review of the past 8 years of DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol Res 12:377–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt L, Bartolomaeus T, Giribet G (2010) The linguistic problem of morphology: structure versus homology and the standardization of morphological data. Cladistics 26:301–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos RA, Balhoff JP, Caravas JA, Holder MT, Lapp H, Maddison WP, Midford PE, Priyam A, Sukamaran J, Xia X, Stolzfus A (2012) NeXML: rich, extensible, and verifiable representation of comparative data and metadata. Syst Biol 61:675–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler QD (2004) Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philos Trans R Soc B 359:571–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler Q (2010) What would NASA do? Mission-critical infrastructure for species exploration. Syst Biodivers 8:11–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler QD, Raven PH, Wilson EO (2004) Taxonomy: impediment or expedient? Science 303:285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth TL, Dawson RD, Magalon H, Baudry E (2007) DNA barcoding cannot reliably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Proc R Soc B 274:1731–1739

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley EO, Lieberman BS (2011) Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics, 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp XVI + 406

  • Will KW, Rubinoff D (2004) Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics 20:47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Will KW, Mishler BD, Wheeler QD (2005) The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Syst Biol 54:844–851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams DM, Ebach MC (2008) Foundations of systematics and biogeography. Springer, New York, pp XVII + 309

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Dr. R. Vos (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden) for commenting on a draft of the manuscript. Dr. M. Riutort (University of Barcelona) and Dr. J. A. J. Breeuwer (University of Amsterdam) are thanked for providing some references on barcoding and genetic hitchhiking, respectively. Dr. Jiangli Tan (College of Life Sciences, Northwest University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China) and Prof. Dr. C. van Achterberg (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden) brought the Chinese wasps example to my attention. Prof. Dr. M. Schilthuizen (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden) kindly suggested some pertinent references and also read and commented on the penultimate version of the manuscript. Mr. J. van Arkel (University of Amsterdam) is thanked for the digital rendering of the figure.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9514, 2300 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Ronald Sluys

  2. Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Ronald Sluys

Authors
  1. Ronald Sluys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald Sluys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sluys, R. The unappreciated, fundamentally analytical nature of taxonomy and the implications for the inventory of biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 22, 1095–1105 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0472-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0472-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation