Saving Systematics: Clarity of Vision

Actions to save a science... and a planet

I spend a lot of time whining about the state of taxonomy—and for good reason.  Its theories, practices and ambitions, its obsession with homologies, synapomorphies and classifications, are widely misunderstood, and its needs neglected.  Worse, it is allowing its own identity and priorities to be shaped by others who neither understand nor appreciate it as a basic science. Yogi Berra warned us that if you don’t know where you’re going, you might not get there.  So, an essential ingredient for saving systematics is clarity of vision: an unambiguous understanding of the purpose and ultimate goals of taxonomy as a science.

Tiger beetles in the Charles A. Triplehorn Insect Colletion at The Ohio State University. Source: news.osu.edu.

It is imperative that we reverse an already entrenched trend toward a systematics of convenience; one based on a single data source; understood primarily as a service; a taxonomy increasingly more applied than fundamental.  No one can question that taxonomic knowledge is necessary for credible biology.  But now, as in the past, the best taxonomic knowledge is the result of taxonomy pursued for its own sake and to its own highest levels of excellence.  Our goal should be to create as much, as detailed, and as reliable knowledge of species as possible; not efficient short-cuts for simply telling species apart.  If we are smart—and the jury is out on that question—we will insist on having both fundamental and applied taxonomy.  In supporting fundamental taxonomy, we enrich our intellectual lives, deepen our scientific understanding, broaden our horizons, and, at the same time, provide a superior service to those who rely upon taxonomic information and knowledge in their own work.

This is the first of a series of ideas for saving systematics as a fundamental, independent science; for reversing the trend toward reliance on a single data source; for rejecting the re-definition of taxonomy as a service; and as a means to seize the last opportunity to fully explore and document the diversity and history of life on a planet undergoing a mass extinction and rapid, irreversible changes in its biosphere.

A necessary step for saving systematics is to clarify its vision.  In spite of popular opinion, this science does not exist to make species identifiable for other biologists, in spite of a long, proud, fantastically successful history doing so.  Systematists cannot fulfill their unique mission unless they get off of their knees, refuse to conform to the priorities of colleagues who do not understand taxonomy or have its best interests at heart, and reassert their science on its own terms.

It is important, of course, to acknowledge that the biodiversity crisis creates an urgent, extremely important need to identify species—and that we must address this need with haste.  But, the right response is not to dumb-down taxonomy, settle for expedient short-cuts, ignore all but one source of evidence, or abandon centuries-old, noble goals to address short-term needs.  The right response is instead a taxonomic renaissance: a revival and reassertion of the unique aims of systematic biology, a return of support to the education and support of taxon experts, funding for a massive, planetary-scale species inventory, and an investment in the growth and development of natural history collections as a reflection of the diversity of life as it exists at the dawn of the Anthropocene.

So, let us be clear.  Taxonomy exists first and foremost to explore, discover, and describe the attributes of each and every species and monophyletic group of species; to make species and clades known, named, and diagnosable; to synthesize all relevant evidence—from morphology to fossils, ontogenetic patterns, and molecular data—in its phylogenetic studies and classifications; and to assure that collections are as full and accurate a reflection of the kinds of life forms—and panoply of characters—that exist as results of billions of years of evolution.

There is a simple test for differentiating real taxonomy from its imposters:  its focus is on knowing species, clades and characters themselves in as much detail as possible; on the diversity, patterns of distribution; and relationships among the attributes of species and monophyletic groups of species. Real taxonomy recognizes its limitations faithfully reconstructing, as explicitly testable hypotheses, the sequence of transformations by which the contemporary diversity of characters came to be and synthesizing and summarizing knowledge in phylogenetic classifications.

Science and humankind deserve to preserve evidence of the evolutionary history of which every species, including humans, are part.  It is our heritage and a necessary framework for understanding ourselves and our world.  Other branches of biology, such as ecology and conservation, deserve to have their need to identify species addressed.  But they are best served when species identifications are portals to deep and reliable information about the species being identified.  There are inherent efficiencies in the comparative method employed in taxonomic revisions and monographs that remains the gold standard for systematics; studies that simultaneously formulate and test hypotheses about the status and relationships of many species.  Short-cuts, like DNA barcodes, come at a cost that should, in the context of mass extinction and science, be unacceptable.

We have one rapidly disappearing chance to explore the diversity of species in the biosphere and the bind-boggling diversity and complexity of their characters and history.  Taxonomy is a fundamental science that, like physics, chemistry, or any other fundamental science, both advances understanding and generates fantastic benefits and opportunities when it pursues knowledge for its own sake.  With a mass extinction breathing down our necks, there could not be worse time to abandon curiosity-driven taxonomy.  Instead, this is a time to reinforce taxonomy’s mission and redouble efforts to create knowledge of species, their characters, and their history—while it remains possible to do so.

A first step in saving systematics is to clarify its vision as a science and to assure users of taxonomic information and knowledge that more, and more reliable, insights will follow if taxonomy is permitted to pursue its own, unique vision.  The lines between basic and applied science; between mere measures of similarity and testable hypotheses; and between the aims of taxonomy, genetics and ecology have been intentionally blurred to the detriment of systematics and, ultimately, of the communities which depend upon taxonomic knowledge.

We are challenged to confront the first mass extinction in sixty-five million years.  So far, we are failing miserably in respect to the first logical step:  determining what species exist through inventory, description, phylogenetic analysis and classification.  Accelerating the process of identifying species must be a priority, but should not, and need not, come at the expense of gaining deep knowledge of species and their characters.  We can, and must, insist on both on an accelerated timetable.  This is possible only if we are clear-eyed about what taxonomy is, what it aims to achieve as an independent science, and what it requires to do so.

There is a lot of blame to go around for the loss of respect and support for taxonomy.  Individual taxonomists who have sold out the integrity of their own science for grant funds or the approval of colleagues.  Institutions who lack the vision and backbone to support systematics in an atmosphere hostile to any science that dares not conform to experimentalism or worship the latest technology. Colleagues whose greed, hubris, and lack of understanding drive them to selfishly undermine taxonomy to more easily meet their own needs.  The result is that academia, institutions, and far too many scientists have lost the plot, forgotten the unique and important role of systematics, and given into peer pressure and fads.  We must let a clear vision of the aims, purpose and needs of taxonomy as a basic, curiosity-driven science be our guide as we confront the biodiversity crisis and support taxonomists to create knowledge with which other sciences and society may make the best choices for the future.

For the Species Hall of Fame, I’m Quentin Wheeler.