l_raty
laurent raty
Garnett, Christidis. 2017. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. The classification of complex organisms is in chaos. Nature 546:25-27.
[free access]
[free access]
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
"Taxonomy anarchy" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter l_raty
- Start date
Mysticete
Well-known member
If they think they can create a global taxonomic body that can bridge the deep divisions in philosophy between adherents of different philosophies and species concepts, not to mention all the various biases and interests endemic to those who work on different taxonomic groups, than I have a bridge in New York I would like to sell them.
Mysticete
Well-known member
I would also argue...most taxonomic changes of late are less about people arbitrarily deciding to split and lump species, but rather reflect growing scientific knowledge about different groups. That different checklists have different number of species more reflects how quick a checklist committee responds and how certain they feel about something before jumping the gun.
Need to decouple the legal from the scientific. This proposal is ok from the former perspective as the alternative is essentially no protection at all (complainants can just cite a competing taxonomy), but it doesn't make sense from the scientific viewpoint. Science needs to be clear which taxonomic approach is being used, and there is a case for having regulatory bodies for each concept (e. g. PS, bs etc) although achieving this is unlikely. The essential problem is all these schemes attempt to impose discontinuous classifications on continuous variation. In these circs decisions are, and always will be, (at least somewhat) subjective.
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
I found this an interesting paper, exposing a real issue about taxonomic inconsistencies with practical examples - but do not think the committee proposal is a go-er, for all the reasons Morgan mentions. In birds, committees do not have a great track record either, whether due to work overload/lack of attention making their lists out of date, the inevitable conflicts that arise when people purport to make decisions about others' work or inconsistencies of philosophy. I am not convinced that committees are the answer to anything in taxonomy, and some of them have created more trouble for taxonomy than benefits - AOU/SACC's approach to obvious splits by unaffiliated research groups over its history has doubtless set back post-Ridgely taxonomy by a decade or so, and has had a generation of taxonomists re-studying old news rather than making discoveries of their own.
As for justifying this by the prominence given to people wanting to kill a checklist of antelopes, are we not better trying to adopt a Kenya model to recreational hunting (i.e. prohibit it) and challenge why people need to kill wild animals for fun, rather than a US model? Apparently, Trump just passed a law allowing people to kill wild animals in US national parks from a helicopter. We'd be better off as conservationists or birders to challenge these sorts of negative societal changes rather than blaming ourselves for not having a taxonomic committee!
TD
As for justifying this by the prominence given to people wanting to kill a checklist of antelopes, are we not better trying to adopt a Kenya model to recreational hunting (i.e. prohibit it) and challenge why people need to kill wild animals for fun, rather than a US model? Apparently, Trump just passed a law allowing people to kill wild animals in US national parks from a helicopter. We'd be better off as conservationists or birders to challenge these sorts of negative societal changes rather than blaming ourselves for not having a taxonomic committee!
TD
jurek
Well-known member
I agree. There are many populations adapted to local conditions which are irreplaceable ecologically and worth protecting although will not qualify as species under any criteria.
The solution is to return to conserving subspecies and local stocks and populations.
More detailed approach is numerical score how unique is every form, promoted e.g. by ZSL project EDGE: evolutionary distinct and endangered. This project gives more weight to an unique species, e.g. Kakapo, average weight to a species with many close relatives e.g. a leaf warbler, and less weight to a form on a borderline between species and subspecies. Areas with numerous forms at the border species-subspecies e.g. Cape Verde or some areas of Latin America will have a protection status not shaken by every decision.
jurek
Well-known member
Whenever this committee would set a border, there will be always cases situated at the borderline. So practical problems cited in their article would re-appear for other animals or plants.
Then, time and resources needed to run all lifeforms through such a committee would create a big delay. And this might become a new problem for conservation by itself. Tropical biodiversity is so big, that estimates tell that a significant part will be undescribed for many decades. So adding some extra evaluation is not a good idea.
Besides, one concept of 'species' may objectively not exist for life forms with different behavior, genetics, ecology, dispersal abilities. When some compromise would be formulated, it might be practically useless.
Then, time and resources needed to run all lifeforms through such a committee would create a big delay. And this might become a new problem for conservation by itself. Tropical biodiversity is so big, that estimates tell that a significant part will be undescribed for many decades. So adding some extra evaluation is not a good idea.
Besides, one concept of 'species' may objectively not exist for life forms with different behavior, genetics, ecology, dispersal abilities. When some compromise would be formulated, it might be practically useless.
Mysticete
Well-known member
Yeah the issue has already sort of been addressed via using stock concepts (in salmon and similar critters) or ESUs, which have been used across a broader group of taxa.
I did find a couple of different points amusing. One the antelope example, if applied to birds and birders, works in reverse. If you recognize a bunch of subspecies as distinct species, that makes them more desirable to see to birders and can help fuel local ecotourism.
I also don't really see this resolving issues such as those concerning animals like Red Wolves or Florida Panthers, whose taxonomy is disputed. There might be strong evidence to suggest that these are not valid taxa (the former a hybrid swarm between coyotes and wolves, the latter simply a population isolated by people killing off the species throughout the rest of its Eastern range). But people are going to be attached to those species, and they are going to get conservation dollars and interest no matter the taxonomy.
I did find a couple of different points amusing. One the antelope example, if applied to birds and birders, works in reverse. If you recognize a bunch of subspecies as distinct species, that makes them more desirable to see to birders and can help fuel local ecotourism.
I also don't really see this resolving issues such as those concerning animals like Red Wolves or Florida Panthers, whose taxonomy is disputed. There might be strong evidence to suggest that these are not valid taxa (the former a hybrid swarm between coyotes and wolves, the latter simply a population isolated by people killing off the species throughout the rest of its Eastern range). But people are going to be attached to those species, and they are going to get conservation dollars and interest no matter the taxonomy.
jurek
Well-known member
I think it is the best solution among the easy ones.
The concept of stocks might also protect unique populations adapted to local conditions. Desert elephants, desert bighorn sheep, siberian tigers, Amur leopards, numerous plant populations tolerant to salt, drought, heavy metals are not separate species. Fine-tuning of their genetics and behavior means they live in places where 'standard' populations of their species cannot survive. And are keystone species there.
I am not familiar with hunting, but never heard there is much drive to shoot all eight spiral-horned antelope. I presume if it exists, and if a number of species of kudu increased to 20, reaction of the hunters would be to lose interest.
I am curious how the system of EDGE, or evolutionary distinct forms would work in birding? A birder who saw a distinct bird would get more points than another drab warbler. Which surprisingly well matches the actual interest of birders. Traveling birders are excited to see a Sunbittern, Zelenodia, Kagu or another unique species. But very strained species, like Eastern Olivaceous Warbler or Scottish Crossbill get little excitement.
jurek
Well-known member
I think, the focus on species is somewhat recent and artificial, due to popular articles and catch-phrases like 'this is an endangered species', and that in the early years of adoption of IT in ornithology, databases were build so that species were primary records. But there is no need to keep it like that.
Mysticete
Well-known member
I mean I think we already kind of see it. I know there are birders who prioritize their travel to places where they can get new families. I certainly have in the past.
Sangahyando
Well-known member
3 points per family, 2 points per genus, 1 point per species, .5 point per subspecies, variable point per cryptid (e.g. Scottish Crossbill), perhaps?
I find this rather ironic, given the recent recommendation by Christidis to revise Striated Grasswren into four species on the basis of a single mtDNA sample! Exactly the sort of hasty work any ruling body would scoff at.
The idea of an international judicial committee has some merit, but surely for birds the IOU is the place to start? (and moreover has started such a process - decades ago)
The idea of an international judicial committee has some merit, but surely for birds the IOU is the place to start? (and moreover has started such a process - decades ago)
Mysticete
Well-known member
well apparently, if you go to the IOC checklist webpage, they are planning on having some sort of special meeting in 2018 on working to better reconcile IOC, Clements, Howard and Monroe, and Birdlife, so there is somewhat a more stable list. Really, Howard and Monroe is not updated regularly so I wouldn't expect much conformity there, and IOC and Clements are sort of similar, although IOC tends to accept taxonomic changes faster than Clements. So really I think quite a bit of the "anarchy" is probably from the recent Birdlife checklist and its differences.
MJB
Well-known member
You meant Howard & Moore, of course....!
One important feature of H&M4 is the wealth of detail in the thousands of footnotes which acknowledges probable and possible future taxonomic changes, a necessary adjunct to a hard-copy authority in this digital age.
MJB
MJB
Well-known member
Similar threads
