Specimen collection: plan for the future.

Abstract

We wish that B. A. Minteer et al. 's claim that field biologists routinely collect voucher specimens were true [“Avoiding (re)extinction,” Perspectives, 18 April, p. [260][1]]. Any museum curator will tell you that it is a constant struggle to convince them to do so, despite countless publications rendered unreliable because it is impossible to verify species' identities. The necessity of voucher specimens varies by taxon and region, but in general, it is good practice to deposit them and as much data as possible, including DNA and photos in life. We certainly do not wish to see any species driven to extinction by overcollecting, but submit that this is rare and more associated with commercial or ardent, recreational overcollecting than sensible scientific vouchering ([ 1 ][2], [ 2 ][3]). If the kill of a single individual increases the extinction risk of a species, then it is well below viable population size and already among the “walking dead.” Dawkins' description of evolution as improbability on a colossal scale is nowhere more evident than in morphology. Whether or not a species survives, museum specimens represent a window on many of its most remarkable novelties. Molecular data, although helpful in identifications, is neither a panacea nor surrogate for museum specimens, especially when it comes to newly discovered species. Describing a new species without depositing a holotype when a specimen can be preserved borders on taxonomic malpractice. Even given good photographs and a tissue sample, there are reasons to collect one or more complete specimens. We do not know what morphological characters will prove important in future studies of species status, phylogenetic relationships, or genetic or epigenetic variation. As taxonomists and ecologists, we do not want to know only that a species exists but to understand what makes it unique compared to related species. Given the importance of the phenotypeenvironment interface in natural selection, we potentially sacrifice the most important things to know about a species when we forego more than superficial evidence of anatomical details. With millions of species threatened by extinction, it would be tragic were we left with no more than a few photographs and sequences as evidence they were once here. Given well-preserved specimens, we can continue to marvel at adaptations, discover models for biomimicry, refine theories of character transformations, and verify the state of internal or external structures discovered in related species. As the last generation with the opportunity to explore, discover, and document millions of species evolved over billions of years, we should not be so arrogant as to assume what science of the future may want or need. 1. [↵][4]1. D. A. Norton 2. et al ., Taxon 43, 181 (1994). [OpenUrl][5][CrossRef][6][Web of Science][7] 2. [↵][8]1. K. Winker 2. et al ., Auk 127, 690 (2010). [OpenUrl][9][CrossRef][10][Web of Science][11] [1]: pending:yes [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DTaxon%26rft.volume%253D43%26rft.spage%253D181%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.2307%252F1222876%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/1222876&link_type=DOI [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994NP04800002&link_type=ISI [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAuk%26rft.volume%253D127%26rft.spage%253D690%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1525%252Fauk.2010.09199%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1525/auk.2010.09199&link_type=DOI [11]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000280858300023&link_type=ISI