Taxonomy for dummies

Minimalist revisions or minimally science?—A parody of systematics by and for ecology

Sharkey and Janzen, this time with a cast of two-dozen, once again promote a taxonomic travesty that they refer to as a minimalist revision.  I can readily attest that it is indeed minimally taxonomy because it sacrifices excellence for speed and knowledge for minimal information.  It ignores centuries of theoretical and procedural progress in systematics by substituting a mindless formula and, in so doing, reduces a serious science to a rote protocol nearly devoid of intellectual content and unworthy of the rich traditions and increasingly high standards of taxonomy.

Why does the science of systematic biology exist?  For me, the answer is as simple and obvious today as it was to Aristotle two thousand years ago, Linnaeus in the 18^th century, and Hennig in the 20^th century:  to discover what kinds of living things exist; describe what makes each unique; understand their relationships; and classify them in a manner that reflects such relationships, organizes knowledge, and makes information retrievable.  In short, to understand species in their full complexity and phylogenetic context.  Systematics is a curiosity-driven, fundamental science in the same way as basic physics or astronomy. We do not reduce the excellence or integrity of basic physics or astronomy to meet the immediate needs of Detroit for more aerodynamic automobile shapes or backyard stargazers to more easily recognize constellations.  So, why should taxonomy be dumbed down for short-term needs of ecologists?

That taxonomic information is essential to credible research in every field of the life sciences should be an incentive for all biologists to support its work, not a license to take short cuts in an effort to meet their own selfish, narrow needs at the expense of the growth of fundamental knowledge.  This would be true at any time, as it has been for hundreds of years, but it is especially important to recognize today at a time of accelerated extinction.  Meeting the minimal needs of ecologists to identify organisms at the expense of forever limiting our understanding of species diversity and evolutionary history comes at what should be an unacceptably high price.  Why should we settle for permanent ignorance when we can easily have both deep taxonomic knowledge and better-quality information for ecologists by simply supporting taxonomists to do taxonomy well, rather than a stripped-down version of taxonomic revisions?

Sharkey and Janzen are poster children for a horribly misguided effort to accelerate taxonomy, not by meeting its basic needs and supporting taxon experts, but by lowering hard-won standards of excellence and settling for minimal knowledge and understanding when deep knowledge is within our reach.  What isn’t said by those advocating so-called minimalist revisions is that they are content to know almost nothing about the species they wish to identify and willing to deny funding to taxonomy and natural history museums.  They suggest that serious, credible species descriptions be deferred to some future date, knowing that extinction rates mean that, for millions of species, such work will never be possible for a huge number of species. But, so long as their immediate need to identify species is met, they seem not to care that they are unnecessarily imposing permanent ignorance on another field of science.  Or that the supposed species they are identifying are not based on explicitly testable hypotheses, but an arbitrary genetic distance. 

If taxonomy and museums were adequately staffed and funded, we could create more reliable and complete knowledge of species rapidly.  With investments in some combination of taxon experts, technology, and coordinated teams we could almost immediately increase the number of credible species descriptions published each year by an order of magnitude to 200,000 per year—or more, with proportionately greater investments.  But instead of funding excellence and aspiring to genuine knowledge of the diversity and history of life a number of ecologists prefer to reduce taxonomy to little more than a rote DNA barcoding service nearly devoid of the information and intellectual content of taxonomy that has served as the foundation for the life sciences for centuries.  It is important to do taxonomy as well as we can the first time rather than having to re-do studies, like minimalist revisions, in the future.

I understand that ecologists may care only for ecological knowledge and, desperate and frustrated, are tempted to accept inferior taxonomy.  But as we face the prospects of losing millions of species, this is a time to insist on learning as much as we can, not lowering our expectations in one area of biology to more rapidly meet the needs of another.  The contempt and disrespect shown for taxonomy by this cynical minimalist approach is beneath the dignity of the scientific enterprise.  The lack of curiosity among those engaged in this taxonomic farce to learn about species themselves, their amazing attributes, and their improbable evolutionary history speaks volumes about their selfish motivations. 

While I love and am motivated by fundamental systematics, I would never advocate dumbing down ecology for my own selfish ends.  Although necessary for environmental biology, taxonomy is at core an evolutionary science.  As such, we could get by without a great deal of the knowledge generated by ecology.  But, as species go extinct, as the fabric of complex ecosystems are torn and tattered, it is equally urgent that we step up ecological efforts to understand the biosphere as fully as possible while it remains more or less intact.  The equivalent of minimalist revisions would be to suggest that we practice “accelerated” or “minimalist” ecology by merely detecting the presence of species in ecosystems with metagenomics; that we no longer use square meter measures to estimate organismal abundance, no longer observe interactions between organisms in their natural habitats, and no longer document host associations of herbivores or prey of predators.  We would know very little of ecology, but I as a taxonomist would have quicker access to minimal knowledge of the distribution of species in ecosystems.  Somehow I doubt that ecologists eager to lower standards in taxonomy would find such minimal ecology acceptable, yet taxonomists are asked to abandon the scientific goals they have pursued for centuries to speed up identification services to ecologists.

Minimalist revisions are not only an insult to taxonomy and disrespectful to the integrity of science itself, they undermine what we ultimately know and understand about life on earth and evolutionary history.  There are serious issues with the correlation of DNA barcodes to species as credible, testable hypotheses.  And as the extinction crisis deepens, it becomes ever more evident that we have only one opportunity to explore, inventory, describe and classify the full diversity of life on earth.  This is not a time for lowered standards and expectations.  It is time to support excellence in systematics and the full range of life sciences capable of deepening our understanding of biosphere, biodiversity and evolutionary history.  Decimating the amount and quality of knowledge gained by one science to speed up access to minimal, and less reliable, information for another is a fool’s bargain.

Sharkey et al.’s paper is not so much a minimal revision as it is a mockery of systematic biology.  A couple of photographs and a DNA barcode in the place of a morphological description, itself based on scores of corroborated hypotheses about homologous characters; one or a few specimens from one location in the place of detailed, comparative study of many specimens from many locations; names that are merely numbers for 158 new species, when names typically are formed to aid in species recognition and memory; and intentionally ignoring potential synonymy of newly named species with previously described ones are among the ways in which this study trivializes taxonomy by making it nearly as devoid of intellectual content as a DNA barcode.

Taxonomy does not exist as a service to ecology regardless of the fact that taxonomic information is essential for credible ecology.  Such information is a by-product of a fundamental science with incredible relevance and impact for a wide array of sciences and societal enterprises, from agriculture and biomedicine to ecology, conservation, and biomimicry.  All of those who use and rely upon taxonomic information should insist upon as much, and as high quality, taxonomic knowledge as possible—not trading depth of understanding and quality of information for convenience of speed.  And all are ultimately best served when taxonomy is done for its own sake, to its own high standards as the independent, fundamental science that it is.

The history of science is littered with bad ideas that imploded under the weight of their own stupidity.  Let’s hope this one is added to the heap sooner than later.  For millions of species there will be no second chances to do taxonomy well, so we are far better advised to do it right the first time.  The current crisis calls for learning as much as we can while we can, not sacrificing knowledge in one science for the convenience of another.

References

Sharkey, M.J., Baker, A., McCluskey, K., et al. 2023. Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Mesochorinae) from Area de Conservacion Guanacaste, Costa Rica, with 158 new species and host records for 129 species.  Revista de Biologia Tropical 71: e53316.

https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/rbt/article/view/56316/56984

Wheeler, Q. 2023. Species, Science and Society: The Role of Systematic Biology. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.