Maximalist taxonomy
Analogies to other fundamental sciences illustrate importance of supporting systematic biology on its own terms
I want to expand upon last week’s podcast that addressed so-called minimalist revisions by way of a few analogies.
What if geologists were told that they should simply determine how to tell types of rocks and minerals apart and not concern themselves with an in-depth exploration of their properties? We might be able to tell limestone from granite, but know few or no details about color, hardness, luster, density, cleavage, or crystal forms; nothing of the importance of atomic level organization on crystaline structure; nothing of chemical composition; nothing of deposition distributions; and nothing of the history of sedimentation, volcanic activity or metamorphic processes that created them. Geology would remain useful, but only in the most trivial way, and it would be denied the pursuit of its scientific and intellectual goals of not only recognizing rocks and minerals but understanding what makes each type unique and the history by which they came to be.
What if ecologists were asked to use metagenomic sampling to determine the presence of species in ecosystems, but denied support to study species interactions, hosts of herbivores, prey species of predators, the complex interplay between abiotic and biotic factors influencing species distributions, the abundance of species within habitats, and the many other things that make studying ecology both fascinating and deeply informative? Reducing ecology to a simple survey service would rob science and society of essential knowledge and understanding with which to make informed decisions from land use to conservation. And, no less importantly, human would be denied the opportunity to understand the incredible web of relationships among species that account for the diversity and functions of the ecosystems of our world’s biosphere.
And, what if astronomers were funded only to map the relative spatial positions of stars and planets? Our understanding of the universe would be stunted and the grand horizons of scientific knowledge would be reduced to pedantic planetary cartography. Our innate curiosity drives us to want to know more. To know about the size, surface conditions, atmospheric composition, temperatures, and countless other attributes of planets beyond their spatial relationships to one another. We could identify planets and stars by their positions, but to what end denied deeper knowledge about them?
Such a move toward minimalist geology, ecology or astronomy is simply unthinkable and would not be acceptable to any corner of the scientific community. It would return us to a dark age of ignorance, when enlightenment, knowledge and understanding are ours for the taking. Our intellectual lives are deeply enriched and our horizons expanded by the growth of basic knowledge about our world and universe. And this is before accounting for the incredible benefits that flow from applications of basic knowledge. As an intelligent species, we are driven to ask questions and seek answers, to understand the world and universe around us, and to seek to comprehend how they came to be. To constrain any of these sciences is to hinder the advance of both intellectual fulfillment and societal progress. Arbitrarily imposed ignorance should never be an acceptable alternative to deep knowledge.
The one exception to respect for fundamental scientific exploration seems to be taxonomy. For decades, systematics has been marginalized, its needs and mission neglected as other sciences advanced in leaps and bounds. Natural history museum collections, the greatest assemblage of information about life on earth, are moth-balled as more popular (and easily funded) areas of science are pursued by museum scientists. Taxonomy is increasingly pursued as a side-line by professionals and as a passion by amateurs, with little funding or recognition. Positions for professionals to pursue the gold-standard of systematics, taxonomic monographs and revisions, are few and funding for such studies increasingly rare unless they are dressed up as some other kind of science project. And now we are progressing from marginalization to something far worse: minimalization.
The so-called minimalist revisions discussed in last week’s podcast represent a formalization of the disrespect for, and neglect of, systematic biology. The arrogance and myopia behind this proposal are stunning, implicitly stating that taxonomy only has value as an identification service for other biologists and ignoring the profound scientific ignorance that will be imposed upon humankind if we fail to support systematics done for its own sake before accelerated extinction reduces the diversity of life on earth.
Taxonomy always deserved to be fully supported like every other fundamental science because it teaches us what we do not know about the diversity and history of life. But today, as millions of species teeter on the brink of extinction, funding professional taxonomists to explore species, conduct taxonomic research at its highest levels of excellence, and organize our knowledge in predictive, phylogenetic classifications should be seen as urgent and imperative. Our own evolutionary heritage, and that of every other species, is on the chopping block. But instead of redoubling our efforts, instead of taking advantage of fantastic theoretical advances and technological innovations to do taxonomy faster and better than ever before, we are retreating, lowering expectations, and reducing species to mere DNA barcodes rather than rigorous hypotheses based on deep understanding of complex homologous attributes.
This is a time in history to support taxonomy as never before because species and evidence of evolutionary history are being destroyed at a frightening pace. Unlike most areas of science, there is a fast-approaching sell-by date for completing an inventory of the results of billions of years of evolutionary history. Gathering basic knowledge and evidence of our planet’s biosphere and evolutionary history is a now or never proposition. Our journey to understand our humanness and where we came from has this one-time opportunity to assemble evidence and knowledge of our relatives, near and distant; an opportunity that will never again exist.
And if you are not concerned by an imposition of permanent ignorance about the story of evolution of which we are part, then there are compelling practical reasons to be concerned. Only with knowledge of species can we make the best decisions about conservation and land use. Only with knowledge of the attributes of species can we find models in nature to inspire biomimetic solutions to current and future problems. Only with knowledge of species can we guard against invasive species and discover new sources of foods, fibers and medications.
I recognize that ecology is on the clock, too. That urgent and growing environmental concerns mean that knowledge of ecology must progress as fast as possible, and that identifying species is fundamental to credible ecology. But the beauty of supporting taxonomists and museums to do taxonomy as well as possible is that the knowledge and information generated will be both more abundant and more reliable than fast-and-dirty molecular estimates of species.
Advances in computer science, digitization, and other areas mean that traditional sources of knowledge of species can advance as fast and in parallel with DNA data. We do not need to lower our standards and expectations to meet the needs of ecologists; we can pursue a taxonomic inventory of life on earth that will enrich our minds and guard our environmental and economic security, fulfilling the mission of systematic biology and, at the same time, generate more and better information for the use of others.
We are entering the greatest era of taxonomic opportunity that will ever exist. A convergence of theoretical advances, technological efficiencies, and important applications for taxonomic knowledge mean that in the next century or two we can learn more about the diversity of earth life, its attributes, and its evolutionary history than during any comparable period of time. Mass extinction means that we must learn as much as we can as fast as we can; that we must insist on theoretically sound taxonomy and hypotheses, not simple genetic measures; and that we must cut no corners as we strive to gather and preserve as much evidence about species and evolution as we can for our benefit and that of all future generations.
The lack of vision shown by proposals to dumb down taxonomy to minimal information; the ignorance of the theoretical advances in taxonomy since Hennig; the limited understanding of philosophy that questions the rigor of non-experimental approaches; the willingness to permanently sacrifice deep knowledge in order to more rapidly address an immediate problem; and the political correctness that has marginalized the needs of taxonomy for decades are self-imposed limitations that will be regretted for millennia to come unless reversed. Taxonomy has made steady progress in theory and practice for two thousand years, especially in its modern form in recent centuries. This has positioned systematics to fulfill its mission to gather, analyze, classify, understand, and disseminate knowledge of species, clades, homologous characters, and phylogenetic patterns to enrich our intellectual lives, science and civilization. To minimize all of its potential benefits to address immediate identification needs is nothing short of a scientific catastrophe.
The great irony is that if taxonomists were supported to do what they alone can do to explore, document, explain and classify, then those who need identifications would be far better served. The species identified would be tied to testable hypotheses, not merely descriptive DNA barcodes. And behind each scientific name would be a tremendous wealth of information and knowledge to be mined and explored as necessary or appropriate. Minimizing taxonomy is not the solution to ecology’s dilemma. Rather than being supporters and advocates for taxonomy in recent decades, ecology has been part of the marginalization of systematics. They now reap the wages of their failure to appreciate and stand behind taxonomy. But the solution is not to further neglect the needs of taxonomists to achieve their mission by adopting inferior methods; the solution is to support taxonomy as an independent, fundamental science so that the knowledge they so desperately need is available, reliable, and as comprehensive as possible.
It is time for a great taxonomic renaissance and modernization. Time for professional taxonomists to be given the mandate to learn as much as possible while time remains. Time for museums to rediscover the importance of growing and developing collections in their care, and supporting systematists to make the most of them. Time for experimentalists to appreciate the epistemology of systematic biology. Time for everyone to take a broad view, recognizing what is at stake as we enter a mass extinction. We need excellence in every branch of science for a great and growing number of reasons. Taxonomy is different in its theories, methods and aims, but it is as or more valuable to science and humankind as any other science. Systematics has never been in a stronger position to deliver on its potential to make life on our planet known and reconstruct the improbable story of its evolutionary history. It is time to recognize this fact before it is too late and the fantastic progress in systematics made over the past half century; to support taxonomy and natural history collections to do what they do best; to allow molecular data to assume its rightful position among other sources of evidence; to endorse a planetary-scale project to inventory all species and preserve specimens and evidence of both biodiversity and evolutionary history; and to get the hell out of the way.
If you want to be able to identify species; if you want species to be credible hypotheses; if you want scientific names to unlock volumes of knowledge about species; if you want to understand billions of years of evolution; and if you want to assure that as many clues exist to fuel a biomimetic revolution as possible, then it is time to support taxonomy on its own terms and pursued with its own standards and goals.
Much knowledge created by geologists and astronomers have little immediate application to ecology research, yet ecology is enriched by such broader understanding of our planet and the universe. It is all connected at some level and ignorance of any one part, sooner or later, weakens scientific understanding writ large. During an extinction crisis is no time for petty self-interest, greedy hoarding of grant monies, and intellectual provincialism. We are all in this crisis together and each and every science has important things to learn and contribute. The solution to the so-called taxonomic impediment — the inability to identify species — is more taxonomy, not less. And taxonomy done to its own high standards and breadth of interests. Taxonomists know exactly what needs to be done to advance knowledge of species, clades, characters, and evolutionary history — and how to do it. Let’s maximize, not minimize, taxonomy, and enjoy the knowledge, understanding and benefits that follow.