Update: Taxonomy on the fast track

Abstract

ISSN 1948‐6596 news and update update Taxonomy on the fast track Biology depends on alpha‐taxonomy: high‐quality and reliable species delineations, species descrip‐ tions and guidance on how to tell species apart. However, taxonomic research can be slow. This problem has been addressed by many recent pa‐ pers, with numerous options proposed for accel‐ erating the process of inventorying biodiversity. It has long been lamented that taxonomy is under‐ funded, which is possibly due to its handicap in academic accreditation (low journal impact fac‐ tors, slow accumulation of citations), but Joppa et al. (2011), in apparent contrast, point out that globally more taxonomists are active today than ever, and that description rates in many taxa are increasing. Awareness is growing among both the producers and consumers of taxonomic knowl‐ edge that the discipline, as traditionally practised, is not up to the task of describing global organis‐ mic diversity in any reasonable time frame. For‐ mal taxonomy has been practiced for 250 years – yet we know, for example, only an estimated 30% of global arthropod species richness. At current rates, it will take many centuries to even get close to describing and naming all extant species (Hamilton et al. 2010, Maddison et al. 2012). Thus, the pressing question is how can tax‐ onomy become more efficient without loss of quality? Educating and employing additional ar‐ mies of specialized taxonomists is probably unre‐ alistic. Skipping proper taxonomy altogether and working on morphospecies is fast, cheap and for some studies justifiable, but it is too error‐prone to qualify as a real solution to the problem (Krell 2004). Also, such data cannot be cross‐referenced across different studies. Many current ideas tend towards technological solutions, the most dis‐ cussed of which is DNA barcoding – i.e., defining and identifying species according to a ubiquitous, short DNA sequence (Hebert et al. 2003). This ap‐ proach is already being widely applied and has some benefits (Valentini et al. 2009, Bik et al. 2012), although it has also been heavily criticised (e.g., Rubinoff et al. 2006). However, other ways of utilizing new tech‐ nologies may also be highly relevant. In particular, IT‐solutions may be able to replace the often rather ancient and fragmented ways of dissemi‐ nating taxonomic information. Many studies are still published in journals with limited and slow access (e.g., paper‐only), and they offer poor ac‐ cess for speedy community‐wide collaboration, feedback and revision. It has been recognized for a while that taxonomy would profit considerably from online solutions (Wheeler 2004, Scoble et al. 2007, Clark et al. 2009). Maddison et al. (2012) summarize current attempts at “e‐taxonomy” and discuss how online technology can change the taxonomic workflow towards more collaborative, faster progress and reduced redundancy. Deans et al. (2012) point out that detailed taxonomic descriptions, an essential part of regis‐ tering and naming new taxa, do not make full use of the effort because information is not easily col‐ lated and compared across larger numbers of spe‐ cies. They suggest that standardization of how taxonomic information is presented combined with advances in text‐mining software (e.g., se‐ mantic tagging; Penev et al. 2010) may open new avenues to utilize these valuable data in other fields, such as ecological and evolutionary studies (in addition to making it easier for taxonomists to access). Essentially, species descriptions could be‐ come the core of a global trait database. Disciplines such as genetics and astronomy have benefited considerably from embracing so‐ phisticated IT approaches. While it cannot be pre‐ dicted which of these ideas will prove suitable for taxonomy, it seems clear that times are changing for the discipline. Jan Beck University of Basel, Dept. Environmental Science (Biogeography), Switzerland. jan.beck@unibas.ch, http://www.biogeography.unibas.ch/beck © 2012 the authors; journal compilation © 2012 The International Biogeography Society — frontiers of biogeography 4.2, 2012