One-Dimensional Systematist: Perils in a Time of Steady Progress

Abstract

This commentary offers a critical assessment of molecular age of biological systematics and deals with certain basic tendencies that seem to indicate a new phase of discipline. These tendencies have engen dered a prevalent one-dimensional thought that un dermines very foundation of systematics. This new phase has produced an advanced state of conformity with its consequent stifling of criticism, restricting legitimization of problems and methods, research pri orities, and last but not least, job opportunities and modes of organization of institutions. Biological systematics is a multidimensional scien tific discipline that describes, names, classifies, and de termines relationships among Earth's biota. It ac complishes these deeply interdependent tasks through surveys, inventories, collections, description of species, phylogenetic reconstruction, hierarchical classifica tions, monographing, and application of rules of no menclature. All these activities, except phylogenetic re construction, are encompassed by sub-discipline named taxonomy (Wilson 2003). Systematics provides a reference system for whole of biology and therefore can be seen as both most basic and most wide-ranging area of biology. It is most basic because organisms cannot be dis cussed or treated in a scientific way until some clas sification has been achieved to recognize them and give them names. It is most wide-ranging because it gathers together and summarizes everything that is known about characteristics of organisms, whether geographical, morphological, physiological, genetic, ecological, or molecular. Beneath fundamental scientific importance of systematics for biology, lies a growing urgency. The roughly 1.7 million species known to science to date probably represent at best fewer than 15% of actual number. Of named species, it is estimated that less than 1% have been studied beyond essentials of geographic location, habitat preference, and diagnostic morphology. At same time, thousands of species (known and unknown) are threatened by imminent ex tinction (Raven 2002). Were we required to characterize current age of systematics by any single epithet, we should be tempt ed to call it the molecular age. Molecular data have provided a new class of features that allow not only phybgenetic reconstruction of closely related taxa, but also broad scale comparisons across all organisms from bacteria to mammals and plants. Unquestionably, we are witnessing an extraordinary time when molec ular systematics is generating an unprecedented rev olution within discipline (Daly et al. 2001). Despite tremendous advances, there are pro found perils in molecular age of systematics: 1. An unbalanced emphasis favoring phylogenetic recon struction based on molecular data at expense of taxonomy; 2. A narrow research program that ignores many aspects of organismal biology and fragments systematics; 3. An unbalanced education of new generation of systematists; 4. A depreciation of natural science collections as part of a broader trend away from organismal biology; 5. A slowdown of taxonomic work that will affect conservation of biodiversity; and 6. An intellectual climate that marginalizes those with different views. I will briefly elaborate on these perils and their consequences. An Unbalanced Emphasis. Taxonomy was once proud flagship of natural sciences. Charles Darwin, founder of theory of natural selection, working in Cirripedia (barnacles) in 19th century and Willi Hennig, founder of modern phylogenetic recon struction, working in Diptera (flies) in 20th century, were both practicing taxonomists. However, in last 30 years taxonomy has seen a gradual loss of credibil ity among fellow scientists. This image problem is based on misconceptions of how taxonomy works. The view that taxonomy is a purely descriptive branch of knowledge that consists only of observations (Anony mous 2004) is a clear example of these misconceptions. In fact, taxonomy is a scientific discipline that requires description, but also theoretical, empirical and episte mological rigor, a hypothesis-driven approach, and field and lab expertise (Stuessy 1990; Carvalho et al. 2005). Furthermore, classification systems are hypotheses. A taxon, basic unit of taxonomy, is a classification system and as such is a scientific hypothesis about or der in nature (Thiele and Yeates 2002). Like every sci entific hypothesis, a taxon goes beyond evidence (observations) for which it purports to account. That is, a taxon has greater scientific content (e.g., predictive capability and explanatory power) than empirical 217

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 55 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.