Optimism, Obstinance and Opportunity

The positive side of the extinction crisis

“Although well-intended, the term ‘taxonomic impediment’, with its negative connotations, was perhaps not best chosen to achieve the desired result, namely, a sea-change over how taxonomy was perceived, funded and generally supported by society, policy makers and other scientists”—Michelle Price, 2025

After decades of seeing their science slighted and slandered, more than a few taxonomists are angry and bitter… with a negative attitude. I know that I am. Whinging about the plight of species—and of taxonomy—feels good, but has done little to change minds, avoid extinctions, increase knowledge, or restore respect and funding to taxonomy. The current fashion of identifying species with DNA—largely divorced from morphological descriptions, taxonomic revisions and monographs—has proven more distraction than help for advancing taxonomy’s mission.

Taxonomy’s Glass: Half Empty or Half Full? A negative message, focused on the empty half of taxonomy’s glass—the decline in grants, jobs, prestige, college curricula, rate of collection growth and development, and the increase of the rate of extinction—has, so far, failed to restore funding, positions, or respect to the science. Perhaps a positive message, concentrating on the full half of taxonomy’s glass, would have more success by emphasizing theoretical advances, methodological rigor, millions of discoveries, information-rich collections, an inspiring vision and mission, widespread impacts on science, society, and conservation, and the exciting opportunity to explore, inventory, understand, describe, classify, and preserve evidence of the diversity and history of our planet’s life forms before millions of species have disappeared.

Image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism#/media/File:Glass_Half_Full_bw_1.JPG; S. nova. CC BY-SA 3.0.

Information created by molecular studies is welcome and useful, of course, but nonetheless quite limited. What it tells us about species, characters, and evolutionary history pales in comparison to traditional taxonomy. With the rate of extinction increasing, we have an ever-shortening period of time during which to explore species and learn as much as we can. Focusing on molecular data, at the virtual exclusion of morphology, in an era of mass extinction, results in tragically irreversible ignorance. It is impossible to be interested in, or curious about, species themselves—about their attributes, relationships and origins—and not be compelled to study, compare and describe their morphology. Only someone with an agenda different from that of taxonomy, someone who simply wants to identify species while learning almost nothing about them, would see molecular-based taxonomy as an acceptable substitute for the much greater information content of taxonomy. It is a throwback to a dark period in the history of taxonomy when single characters were considered sufficient for telling species apart; before characters, species and clades were based on explicitly testable hypotheses, before revisions and monographs were expected to synthesize, in a phylogenetic context, all available, relevant evidence.

Pursued to a high level of excellence, taxonomy creates knowledge impossible to obtain with molecular data alone. Emergent complexity associated with many morphological characters means that they must be studied, compared, and described in detail. When taxonomy is seen as an independent science, rather than a service, it goes far beyond simply identifying species.

Taxonomy is as much about characters as species and clades; as much about history as the present-day world; as much about theories as observations; as much about hypotheses as facts; more about the combinations of characters unique to species, and the synthesis of diverse evidence in a phylogenetic classification, than making species recognizable. Stated plainly, taxonomy’s prime directive is to explore, describe, analyze, name, classify and, ultimately, know and understand species, clades and characters in their historical context—not simply tell species apart. To this end, molecular data is a welcome addition to morphology, fossils, and ontogeny. But, divorced from descriptive and revisionary studies, it is little more than an identification tool.

Before turning a new leaf, before attempting to be positive, permit me to list some of the reasons for my negative attitude. I want to be clear that I am negative about the state of taxonomy and the unjustified ways in which it is seen, portrayed and treated. I am, on the other hand, boundlessly positive and optimistic about taxonomy itself. No science is more exciting, rewarding, relevant, inspiring or impactful than taxonomy; in none are hypotheses more strenuously tested; none have a more solid theoretical foundation; none can exceed taxonomy’s record of discoveries, achievements, or impacts on humankind and civilization; none are more intellectually exciting or demanding; none produce knowledge of greater fundamental importance or enduring value. Against this wildly optimistic view of taxonomy, it is easy to understand taxonomists complaints about the current state of affairs:

· The most interesting and informative sources of evidence are being ignored;

· Standardized procedures are used in the place of taxonomy’s theories and rich intellectual traditions;

· Deep knowledge is being sacrificed for short-term convenience;

· Natural history museums are abdicating their leadership role exploring species and growing, developing, and using collections for their highest purpose;

· The rigorous scholarship of revisions and monographs is replaced by rote analyses of a single data source;

· In the place of informative, predictive, phylogenetic classifications are molecular data sets du jour;

· Fashions in funding, and the lack of institutional leadership, are causing us to miss the opportunity to explore, inventory, and understand the diversity and history of life before evidence is permanently erased by mass extinction;

· Positions and grants for revisionary taxonomy are few, and dwindling;

· Universities have abandoned curricula and degree programs at a time of unprecedented need for taxonomic expertise;

· And, the elegance and stringent testability of taxonomy’s hypotheses are misunderstood by colleagues who see science only through the lens of the experimental method.

Although these, and many other things, are tragically true, for decades pleas to address them have fallen on deaf ears. Although it could be otherwise, as molecular data grows in popularity, taxonomy’s situation is becoming worse, not better.

It is human nature, and much easier, to back those winning rather than stand up for underdogs. And legitimate needs, no matter how urgent or severe, do not necessarily attract the resources needed to address them. Have you seen any prosperous bums lately? The tin cups of beggars, plagued by indisputable need, seldom, if ever, runneth over. As Michelle Price suggests in her chapter in the Systematics Association’s forthcoming book, The New Taxonomy: A Science Reimagined, it is time to consider a different tact to revive taxonomy. A positive one.

The most recent revision, for most higher taxa, was published decades ago. Yet, in spite of the incredible value of such works, it is almost impossible to find funding for a straight-forward revision; instead, revisionary work must be combined with, or disguised as, some topic of greater popularity. Paradoxically, even as taxonomy is neglected, it has every element for success: the excitement of exploration; the adventure of collecting in the most remote, species-rich, and least well-known places on earth; the intellectual satisfaction of reconstructing evolutionary history; the discovery of characters that make each species unique, and synapomorphies revealing relationships; unleashing the potential of biomimicry by discovering clues and models among species; providing knowledge for biodiversity conservation; an impressive record of growth of knowledge; refined theories and effective means of testing hypotheses; and natural history collections with hundreds of millions of specimens accumulated over centuries. In addition, taxonomy’s mission is made urgent by increasing rates of extinction. No science has more to offer in terms of fundamental knowledge or information relevant to immediate challenges—yet taxonomy is misunderstood, maligned, and marginalized. With all of this going for it, taxonomy should be celebrated alongside contemporary astronomy and physics as a modern, impactful, inspiring and pioneering science. Clearly, we are doing something wrong in the way we present, explain and advocate for it.

Taxonomy is a victim of misunderstanding, prejudice, group-thinking—and its own success. It has made so many commonly encountered species recognizable that many biologists advance their research with existing knowledge; and, society functions well because species important to agriculture, commerce, natural resource management, biomedicine, conservation, and many other areas, can be identified. But 80%, or more, of the world’s species remain unknown to science, and most others are in need of additional study.

While we must educate colleagues and the public about the importance of taxonomy and its impacts and uses, nothing succeeds like success. So, while dispelling falsehoods, and in spite of serious headwinds, taxonomists must pursue their mission undeterred and allow a flood of discoveries, insights and impacts to speak for themselves.

Taxonomy can create its own opportunities through a combination of optimistic messaging and uncompromising adherence to its own agenda, priorities and standards. Optimistic messaging, because a positive message is inspiring and more likely to attract support—and because, in spite of many challenges, taxonomists have even more to be optimistic about. But to achieve its potential, taxonomy must safeguard the integrity of its science; its vision and herculean mission cannot be achieved if it continues to yield to fads, peer pressure, or the priorities of other disciplines.

Optimism

A mass species extinction event, already underway, is one of the greatest threats ever faced by humankind. Potential short- and long-term consequences are so horrific that they are, for many, literally unthinkable. They choose instead to ignore or deny what is happening to avoid facing the awful truth. Taxonomy’s agenda, intertwined as it is with the biodiversity crisis, is an unwelcomed reminder doom-and-gloom fast approaching.

Fortunately, taxonomy has a flip side. A positive one. This pending tragedy, as horrific as it is, is accompanied by opportunities in equal measure. It is not too late to explore, collect, study, document, and create a legacy of knowledge of the diversity and history of life on our planet. We can assemble a permanent record of millions of species, and an even greater number of characters, soon to be otherwise lost.

Were we miraculously to find ourselves transported to the Jurassic, with knowledge of the catastrophe that lay ahead at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, we would no doubt collect and preserve specimens of as many species of dinosaurs as possible before they were extinct. Orchids, beetles, and fish may not be dinosaurs, but they are, in their own ways, no less valuable, vulnerable or interesting to science. And we do have the opportunity to preserve specimens and knowledge of them.

It is possible, as Price recommends, to focus on positive aspects of pursuing taxonomy rather than emphasizing only the dire situation in which we find ourselves. We can explore and document the results of billions of years of evolution; help minimize the number of species lost, and maximize the diversity of those surviving; map the geographic distribution, and ecological co-occurrences, of species; and reveal attributes of species capable of inspiring biomimetic solutions to countless problems. Exploring species, we enrich our intellectual lives by understanding ourselves, and every other species, in evolutionary context. Taxonomy’s vision is awe-inspiring: to explore and create knowledge of millions of species and their origins.

Taxonomists have, for centuries, laid the groundwork for a planetary-scale inventory. Hundreds of millions of information-rich specimens exist already in museum collections. Theories and methods have been refined. Travel is relatively inexpensive. Technologies exist to speed every aspect of taxonomy, from travel to remotely accessing specimens, literature, colleagues and databases. And, about two million species have already been discovered, described, named, and classified—more than a good start.

It remains for taxonomy and its mission to be communicated in a positive, confident, and inspiring way, to emphasize benefits to science and humankind of exploring, describing and classifying earth’s species; of fleshing out the story of evolutionary history; of finding ways in which other species have overcome challenges of survival; and of understanding ourselves in the context of biodiversity, biosphere, and evolutionary history. Scientific colleagues must be won over through education and persuasion and the same time that the excitement and adventure of taxonomy’s mission is shared with the public to build grassroots support.

Obstinance

Molecular data is an exciting, useful addition to taxonomy. It is, however, no more important, reliable or informative than evidence from morphology, the fossil record, or embryonic development, and it is time that it be seen for what it is—one source of data among several—and assume its rightful place alongside the others.

Leaders are urgently needed. Taxonomists must no longer appease those with an inflated view of the importance of molecular data, comply with fads, or follow funding fashions. Along with a visionary, optimistic presentation of the mission and benefits of taxonomy, systematists must be obstinate. Given the rate at which species are going extinct, we can no longer afford to go along to get along. No further compromise of taxonomy’s identity, integrity, focus or resolve can be tolerated.

Taxonomy has surrendered too much territory already, ground which must now be retaken. If taxonomy is to fulfill its mission, before millions of species have disappeared, then here and now is where we make our stand. To delay is to risk failure conserving biodiversity, sustaining ecosystems, protecting human welfare, and realizing taxonomy’s vision to discover, know and understand species, characters, and their history.

Taxonomists must be reliable partners making species identifiable, as they always have. But this need not lower expectations for their own science. Taxonomists have an obligation to defend the pursuit of fundamental knowledge of characters, species, clades and history—something no other science can or will do. Moreover, when taxonomy is done to its own highest standards it delivers more, and more reliable, identifications and information to users. Supporting taxonomy’s agenda is a win-win situation.

Taxonomy’s mission, the excellence of its theories and methods, and the relevance and impacts of its research are second to none. It is malpractice to compromise taxonomy’s mission, to bow to peer pressure, to conform to the priorities of other fields, or to, in any way, limit or obstruct taxonomy’s own agenda or reduce its standards.

Opportunity

Taxonomists have much to be optimistic about. Fantastic theoretical advances in recent decades. That time remains to explore species before a mass extinction. That among those species are clues with which to create biomimetic solutions to challenges humankind faces. DNA is helpful identifying species and estimating their relatedness, but it is severely limited when it comes to understanding species themselves, their characters, and their evolutionary history. The same morphology central to revisionary taxonomy is a necessary bridge between genome and what species look like, and between living and fossil species; and morphological characters are the endpoints to which embryonic developmental pathways lead. When taxonomy is ignored, when molecular data are over-emphasized, knowledge is sacrificed and science and society suffer.

The time for taxonomy to take action has arrived. We are witness to an unprecedented confluence of need, opportunity and capability. Taxonomy brings expertise uniquely suited to meeting the challenge of exploring species, understanding evolutionary history, preserving evidence of biodiversity, informing conservation priorities, and inspiring biomimetic solutions. DNA data is a valuable addition to taxonomy, but it can teach us only a small fraction of what we should learn about species diversity and history. Only taxonomy, with its synthesis of evidence, its specimen collections, its theories and methods, its focus on characters, its informative and predictive classifications, and its purview, as broad as life is diverse, and as deep as evolutionary time, can do that.

Taxonomy has much to be optimistic about. We need not wait for a theoretical breakthrough; thanks to Hennig, and those who followed him, we have it. We do not need new technologies to efficiently pursue taxonomy’s mission; existing ones are easily adapted to purpose. What taxonomy needs is a public relations makeover, a communications campaign to rebut false accusations and ilfounded assumptions. After decades of being maligned, sidelined, and misunderstood, it is time for taxonomy to strike back with a powerful, positive, unapologetic message and with decisive actions. Its vision and mission are as inspiring, audacious, and relevant as those of any science. The importance of its agenda to the future of the environment, biodiversity and humankind are indisputable. It is positioned for success.

From outside its community, taxonomy lacks only for recognition of its scientific rigor, respect for its mission and impacts, and appropriate funding. From inside the community, it needs clarity of vision, courage of purpose, and unwavering resolve. With a mission as urgent as any, and more relevant than most, taxonomy must reassert its identity, independence and agenda with the optimism and confidence that it deserves. One could not conceive a science more perfectly suited to confront the biodiversity crisis. A science capable of discovering and making known earth’s species, preserving evidence and knowledge of their history, and preparing humankind to meet challenges of the future.

Contrary to malicious rumors, taxonomy and natural history museums are not anachronisms. They are a science, and an international network of institutions, prepared and positioned to lead us through a mass extinction. Taxonomy is more scientifically rigorous, capable, and relevant than ever before. It is only biased views and tired, false assumptions about taxonomy that are out of date. It is time for taxonomy to reassert itself, to reject conformity and fads, to forcefully advocate for its mission with a positive, visionary, can-do message. With a combination of optimism and obstinance, with vision and uncompromising resolve, taxonomists can create their own opportunities and rise to meet the biodiversity crisis…and their destiny.

Reference

Price, M. J. 2025. Taxonomy positive, pp. 194-208 In D.M.Williams and Q.D.Wheeler (eds.), The New Taxonomy: A Science Reimagined. CRC Press, Boca Raton.S