Evaluating the progress and needs of taxonomy since the Convention on Biological Diversity: going beyond the rate of species description
Elise Tancoigne A B D and Guillaume Ollivier C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité, ISYEB – UMR 7205 CNRS MNHN UPMC EPHE, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 25 Rue Cuvier, F-75005 Paris, France.
B INRA, UMR Lisis, IFRIS, Université Marne-la-Vallée, Cité Descartes, Champs-sur-Marne, 5 Boulevard Descartes, F-77454 Marne-la-Vallée Cedex 02, France.
C INRA, UR0767 Ecodéveloppement, PACA Research Centre, Site Agroparc, CS40509, F-84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France.
D Corresponding author. Present address: University of Geneva, Boulevard Carl Vogt 66, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland. Email: elise.tancoigne@unige.ch
Australian Systematic Botany 30(4) 326-336 https://doi.org/10.1071/SB16017
Submitted: 12 April 2016 Accepted: 25 August 2017 Published: 21 December 2017
Abstract
There is a long tradition of assessing the activity and progress of taxonomy with quantitative indicators, such as, for example, number of taxonomists, species described and species collected. These evaluations play a key role in the context of a worldwide concern over biodiversity and its governance. We have described and analysed these evaluations since 1992, the year in which the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted. We showed that despite the establishment of a dedicated body inside the CBD (the Global Taxonomy Initiative), these quantitative evaluations are mostly sporadic and independent initiatives, performed by non-taxonomists. They do not map the places where most of the taxonomic activities take place, and they are performed on small scales, with scarce and heterogeneous sources of data, making comparisons almost impossible. Most of the indicators they use refer to the activity of species description. We argue that there is a need to rethink the way we evaluate taxonomy today and we discuss why it is urgent to move beyond indicators of species description. We suggest the use of a new set of indicators that would focus on taxonomic resources and dynamics, instead of taxonomic outputs.
Additional keywords: capacity assessment, collections, Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI), taxonomic impediment, text analysis.
References
Advisory Board for the Research Councils (1979) Taxonomy in Britain. Report by the Review Group on Taxonomy set up by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils under the chairmanship of Sir Eric Smith, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK.Ariño AH (2010) Approaches to estimating the universe of natural history collections data. Biodiversity Informatics 7, 81–92.
| Approaches to estimating the universe of natural history collections data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Balcells E (1963) ‘Sugerencias y aspectos de labor zoologica en Espana.’ (Comisión de Estudios Zoológicos, Madrid, Spain)
Berendsohn WG, Chavan V, Macklin J (2010) Summary of recommendations of the GBIF task group on the global strategy and action plan for the digitisation of natural history collections. Biodiversity Informatics 7, 61–71.
| Summary of recommendations of the GBIF task group on the global strategy and action plan for the digitisation of natural history collections.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Blackwelder RE (1959) The present status of systematic zoology. Systematic Zoology 8, 69–75.
| The present status of systematic zoology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brues CT (1939) Some adaptive responses of taxonomy to a changing environment. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 47, 145–154.
Callicott JB, Crowder LB, Mumford K (1999) Current normative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology 13, 22–35.
| Current normative concepts in conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chapman AD (2009) Numbers of living species in Australia and the world. Report for the Australian Biological Resources Study, Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Costello MJ, May RM, Stork NE (2013) Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct? Science 339, 413–416.
| Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXhtFyntbY%3D&md5=530c89fbb415c633be08b86cdb626710CAS |
Dalton R (2003) Natural history collections in crisis as funding is slashed. Nature 423, 575
| Natural history collections in crisis as funding is slashed.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXkt1yktLg%3D&md5=186590668efe712214d8fc2dd0231d0bCAS |
de Carvalho MR, Ebach MC, Williams DM, Nihei SS, Trefaut Rodrigues M, Grant T, Silveira LF, Zaher H, Gill AC, Schelly RC, Sparks JS, Bockmann FA, Séret B, Ho H-C, Grande L, Rieppel O, Dubois A, Ohler A, Faivovich J, Assis LCS, Wheeler QD, Goldstein PZ, de Almeida EAB, Valdecasas AG, Nelson G (2014) Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again. Cladistics 30, 322–329.
| Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dumoulin D, Ollivier G (2013) Comment peut-on être systématicien? Faire exister une communauté scientifique : le cas français dans la dynamique internationale. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 7, 365–410.
| Comment peut-on être systématicien? Faire exister une communauté scientifique : le cas français dans la dynamique internationale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Edwards SR, David GM, Nerling L (1985) ‘The Systematics Community.’ (Association of Systematics Collections c/o Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, USA)
Environment Australia (1998) The Darwin Declaration. Australian Biological Resources Study and Environment Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Figueiredo E, Smith GF (2010) The colonial legacy in African plant taxonomy. South African Journal of Science 106,
| The colonial legacy in African plant taxonomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fontaine B, van Achterberg K, Alonso-Zarazaga MA, Araujo R, Asche M, Aspöck H, Aspöck U, Audisio P, Aukema B, Bailly N, Balsamo M, Bank RA, Belfiore C, Bogdanowicz W, Boxshall G, Burckhardt D, Chylarecki P, Deharveng L, Dubois A, Enghoff H, Fochetti R, Fontaine C, Gargominy O, Lopez MSG, Goujet D, Harvey MS, Heller K-G, van Helsdingen P, Hoch H, De Jong Y, Karsholt O, Los W, Magowski W, Massard JA, McInnes SJ, Mendes LF, Mey E, Michelsen V, Minelli A, Nafria JMN, van Nieukerken EJ, Pape T, De Prins W, Ramos M, Ricci C, Roselaar C, Rota E, Segers H, Timm T, van Tol J, Bouchet P (2012) New species in the Old World: Europe as a frontier in biodiversity exploration, a test bed for 21st century taxonomy. PLoS One 7, e36881
| New species in the Old World: Europe as a frontier in biodiversity exploration, a test bed for 21st century taxonomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XotVyqsr8%3D&md5=a33515e81aada13cd660342563aecad1CAS |
Granjou C, Mauz I, Barbier M, Breucker P (2014) Making taxonomy environmentally relevant. Insights from an all taxa biodiversity inventory. Environmental Science & Policy 38, 254–262.
| Making taxonomy environmentally relevant. Insights from an all taxa biodiversity inventory.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grieneisen ML, Zhan Y, Potter D, Zhang M (2014) Biodiversity, taxonomic infrastructure, international collaboration, and new species discovery. Bioscience 64, 332
| Biodiversity, taxonomic infrastructure, international collaboration, and new species discovery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gropp RE (2003) Are university natural science collections going extinct? Bioscience 53, 550
| Are university natural science collections going extinct?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hamer M, Raath M (2011) Audit report of South Africa’s Natural Science Collections. Collecting now to preserve the Future. Totem Media, Johannesburg, South Africa; and South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (Eds) (2005) ‘Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series.’ (Island Press: London, UK)
Hebert PDN, Gregory TR (2005) The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54, 852–859.
| The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hine C (2008) ‘Systematics as Cyberscience: Computers, Change, and Continuity in Science’, Inside Technology series. (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA)
Hoberg EP, Pilitt PA, Galbreath KE (2009) Why museums matter: a tale of pinworms (Oxyuroidea: Heteroxynematidae) among pikas (Ochotona princeps and O. collaris) in the American West. The Journal of Parasitology 95, 490–501.
| Why museums matter: a tale of pinworms (Oxyuroidea: Heteroxynematidae) among pikas (Ochotona princeps and O. collaris) in the American West.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1MvnvVOlsw%3D%3D&md5=1037920cf658e3a48cf2b7be398ea471CAS |
Holden C (1985) Princeton to give up its fossils. Science 228, 38
| Princeton to give up its fossils.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3cvjvFKmsg%3D%3D&md5=dc5b480b0ba4d88259f99185a096caacCAS |
Hopkins GW, Freckleton RP (2002) Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 5, 245–249.
| Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Janzen DH (1993) Taxonomy: universal and essential infrastructure for development and management of tropical wildlands biodiversity. In ‘Proceedings of the Norway/UNEP Expert Conference on Biodiversity’, 24–28 May 1993, Trondheim, Norway. (Eds OT Sandlund, PJ Schei) pp. 100–113. (Directorate for Nature Management and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research: Trondheim, Norway)
Joppa LN, Roberts DL, Pimm SL (2011) The population ecology and social behaviour of taxonomists. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26, 551–553.
| The population ecology and social behaviour of taxonomists.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
La Salle J, Wheeler Q, Jackway P, Winterton S, Hobern D, Lovell D (2009) Accelerating taxonomic discovery through automated character extraction. Zootaxa 2217, 43–55.
McClellan JE, Regourd F (2000) The colonial machine: French science and colonization in the Ancien regime. Osiris 15, 31–50.
| The colonial machine: French science and colonization in the Ancien regime.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Michán Aguirre L, Llorente Bousquets JE (2003) La taxonomía en méxico durante el siglo XX. Publicaciones Especiales del Museo de Zoología 12, 1–229.
Michán Aguirre L, Llorente Bousquets JE (2010) Bibliometría de la sistemática biológica sobre América Latina durante el siglo XX en tres bases de datos mundiales. Revista de Biología Tropical 58, 531–545.
Michán Aguirre L, Llorente Bousquets JE, Martínez AL, Castro DJ (2004) Breve historia de la taxonomía de Lepidoptera en México durante el siglo XX. In ‘Biodiversidad, Taxonomía y Biogeografía de Artrópodos en México: Hacia una sÃntesis de su conocimiento’. (Eds JE Llorente Bousquets, JJ Morrone, O Yáñez Ordóñez, I Vargas Fernández) Vol. IV, pp. 5–42. (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Mexico City, México)
Michán Aguirre L, Russell JM, Sanchez Pereyra A, Llorens Cruset A, Beltrán CL (2008) Análisis de la sistemática actual en Latinoamérica. Interciencia 33, 754–761.
Miller SE, Kress WJ, Samper CK (2004) Crisis for biodiversity collections. Science 303, 310
| Crisis for biodiversity collections.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXls1aruw%3D%3D&md5=14fcf83ab377e8f71623e6eb83163abeCAS |
Mittermeier RA, Goettsch Mittermeier C (1997) ‘Megadiversity: Earth’s Biologically Wealthiest Nations.’ (CEMEX: Mexico City, Mexico)
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Science, Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections (2009) ‘Scientific Collections: Mission-Critical Infrastructure of Federal Science Agencies.’ (Office of Science and Technology Policy: Washington, DC, USA)
Office of the Inspector General (2009) ‘Museum Collections: Accountability and Preservation.’ (US Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA)
Orli S, Bird J (2016) Establishing workflows and opening access to data within natural history collections. Collections 12, 147–162.
Paknia O, Sh HR, Koch A (2015) Lack of well-maintained natural history collections and taxonomists in megadiverse developing countries hampers global biodiversity exploration. Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 15, 619–629.
| Lack of well-maintained natural history collections and taxonomists in megadiverse developing countries hampers global biodiversity exploration.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ride WDL, McCusker A (1978) ‘Australian Biological Resources Study, 1973–78.’ (Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, ACT, Australia)
Saldaña J (2012) ‘The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.’ (SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA)
Samper C (2004) Taxonomy and environmental policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 359, 721–728.
| Taxonomy and environmental policy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schindel DE, Haeuser C, Miller SE, Bavikatte K, Beck E, Burks C, Davies N, Desmeth P, du Plessis P, Garrity G, Geeta R, Haas F, Holm-Mueller K, Huntley B, Chege Kamau E, Kim W, Lyal CHC, Marinoni L, Martinez S, Matsuura K, Ni KJ, Ong P, Schönwitz R, Wahiche JD (2009) Preserving international access to genetic resources for non-commercial biodiversity research. Report from the International Workshop on Access and Benefit Sharing in Non-Commercial Research, 17–19 November 2008, Museum Koenig, Bonn, Germany.
Scoble MJ, Bourgoin T (2010) Natural history collections digitization: rationale and value. Biodiversity Informatics 7, 77–80.
| Natural history collections digitization: rationale and value.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith V, Blagoderov V (2012) Bringing collections out of the dark. ZooKeys 209, 1–6.
| Bringing collections out of the dark.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND (2004) The value of museum collections for research and society. Bioscience 54, 66–74.
| The value of museum collections for research and society.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Systematics Agenda 2000 (1994) Systematics Agenda 2000: Charting the Biosphere. Technical report, Systematics Agenda, New York, NY, USA.
Szwedo J, Iwan D (2008) To survive or to flourish? Status and role of natural history museums in the biodiversity research. Polish Taxonomical Monographs 15, 55–69.
Tancoigne E (2011) Evaluer la santé de la taxonomie zoologique: histoire, méthodes et enjeux contemporains. PhD thesis, National Museum of Natural History, Paris, France. Available at https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00707531 [Verified 12 October 2017]
Tancoigne E, Bole C, Sigogneau A, Dubois A (2011) Insights from zootaxa on potential trends in zoological taxonomy. Frontiers in Zoology 8, 5
| Insights from zootaxa on potential trends in zoological taxonomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tancoigne E, Barbier M, Cointet J-P, Richard G (2014) The place of agricultural sciences in the literature on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 10, 35–48.
| The place of agricultural sciences in the literature on ecosystem services.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vadrot ABM (2014) ‘The Politics of Knowledge and Global Biodiversity.’ (Routledge: New York, NY, USA)
Waterton C, Ellis R, Wynne B (2013) ‘Barcoding Nature: Shifting Cultures of Taxonomy in an Age of Biodiversity Loss.’ (Routledge: London, UK)
Weeks PJD, Gaston KJ (1997) Image analysis, neural networks, and the taxonomic impediment to biodiversity studies. Biodiversity and Conservation 6, 263–274.
| Image analysis, neural networks, and the taxonomic impediment to biodiversity studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilson EO (2004) Taxonomy as a fundamental discipline. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London – B. Biological Sciences 359, 739
| Taxonomy as a fundamental discipline.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
