Systematics must Embrace Comparative Biology and Evolution, not Speed and Automation

Abstract

Systematists have come under a barrage of criticism because of the alleged inadequacy of the ‘traditional’ taxonomic paradigm
to curb the ‘biodiversity crisis’ and expeditiously make available the products of systematic research—usually species names—to
the professional biological ‘user’ community (including ecologists, physiologists, population geneticists, and conservationists).
The accusations leveled on systematists range from being ‘slow’ to ‘incapable’ of furnishing these products at a rate considered
(by users) appropriate, especially given that the professional systematic community is portrayed as being in stark decline
while operating in a quickly deteriorating natural world. Some of the critics have proposed solutions to this ‘taxonomic impediment’
in the form of a triumvirate adjoining a unitary taxonomic cyberstructure+automated DNA barcoding+molecular phylogeny,
which we consider to be nothing but a threefold miopia; one critic has even gone as far as to suggest that biologists who
need systematists can circumvent this dependency by ‘doing systematics themselves’. The application of a quick-fix, ‘automated-pragmatist’
model is antithetical to a science endowed with a strong epistemological and theoretical foundation. We view the current propaganda
in favor of automation and pragmatism in systematics as a distraction from the real issues confronting systematists, who must
do more to impede the current trend that has ‘marginalized’ organismal biology in general. Simply increasing the rate of species
descriptions, as suggested by critics, will not ameliorate the ‘crisis’—taxa that correspond to incorrect hypotheses of biological
entities (i.e. that are not monophyletic) will compromise the reliability of systematic information. Systematists must therefore
provide more than ‘binomials’—they must strive to produce vigorous hypotheses of comparative biology that are historical and
theory-rich in order to augment the general reference system that is so critical to research in other biological sciences
and conservation.

Full text

ESSAY
Systematics must Embrace Comparative Biology and Evolution,
not Speed and Automation
Marcelo R. de Carvalho ÆFla
´vio A. Bockmann Æ
Dalton S. Amorim ÆCarlos Roberto F. Branda
˜o
Received: 19 November 2007 / Accepted: 29 February 2008
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Systematists have come under a barrage of
criticism because of the alleged inadequacy of the ‘tradi-
tional’ taxonomic paradigm to curb the ‘biodiversity crisis’
and expeditiously make available the products of systematic
research—usually species names—to the professional
biological ‘user’ community (including ecologists, physi-
ologists, population geneticists, and conservationists). The
accusations leveled on systematists range from being ‘slow’
to ‘incapable’ of furnishing these products at a rate consid-
ered (by users) appropriate, especially given that the
professional systematic community is portrayed as being in
stark decline while operating in a quickly deteriorating
natural world. Some of the critics have proposed solutions to
this ‘taxonomic impediment’ in the form of a triumvirate
adjoining a unitary taxonomic cyberstructure +automated
DNA barcoding +molecular phylogeny, which we con-
sider to be nothing but a threefold miopia; one critic has even
gone as far as to suggest that biologists who need systema-
tists can circumvent this dependency by ‘doing systematics
themselves’. The application of a quick-fix, ‘automated-
pragmatist’ model is antithetical to a science endowed with a
strong epistemological and theoretical foundation. We view
the current propaganda in favor of automation and prag-
matism in systematics as a distraction from the real issues
confronting systematists, who must do more to impede the
current trend that has ‘marginalized’ organismal biology in
general. Simply increasing the rate of species descriptions,
as suggested by critics, will not ameliorate the ‘crisis’—taxa
that correspond to incorrect hypotheses of biological entities
(i.e. that are not monophyletic) will compromise the reli-
ability of systematic information. Systematists must
therefore provide more than ‘binomials’—they must strive
to produce vigorous hypotheses of comparative biology that
are historical and theory-rich in order to augment the general
reference system that is so critical to research in other bio-
logical sciences and conservation.
Keywords Taxonomic impediment Phylogenetic
systematics Taxonomy Comparative biology 
General reference system Historical biology 
Conservation
Introduction
…institutions and leaders [of descriptive taxonomy
must] become more pluralistic in what they recognize
and reward as excellence
(Godfray and Knapp 2004, p. 568)
Taxonomy might indeed be threatened, but the
greatest threats might be from those who would usurp
the resources that it needs to grow and thrive
(Lipscomb et al. 2003, p. 65)
In a recently published essay, Evenhuis (2007) discussed
a facet of the ‘taxonomic impediment’ that he believes has
M. R. de Carvalho (&)
Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biocie
ˆncias,
Universidade de Sa
˜o Paulo, Rua do Mata
˜o, Trav. 14, no. 101,
Sa
˜o Paulo, SP 05508-900, Brazil
e-mail: mrcarvalho@ib.usp.br
F. A. Bockmann D. S. Amorim
Departamento de Biologia, FFCLRP, Universidade de Sa
˜o
Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeira
˜o Preto, SP 14040-901,
Brazil
C. R. F. Branda
˜o
Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sa
˜o Paulo, Av. Nazare
´481,
Sa
˜o Paulo, SP 04263-000, Brazil
123
Evol Biol
DOI 10.1007/s11692-008-9018-7

been neglected by those concerned with the current ‘crisis’
affecting this branch of science—that many taxonomists
are not delivering the goods because they are simply
unproductive, and therefore apathetic about advancing the
noble causes of taxonomy. In short, according to Evenhuis,
some taxonomists are like junkies—they crave and seek the
thrill of collecting and discovering new taxa, but that after
this initial rush the tedious work of writing up their con-
clusions falls astray. To remedy this paralysis, Evenhuis
proposed practical steps for taxonomists which he believes
would solve this aspect of the ‘impediment’.
Evenhuis has undeniably exposed a difficulty impacting
taxonomy, and one that may even be relatively common.
However, even though his diagnosis may be partially cor-
rect, a proper analysis of its causes is lacking in his paper,
which we believe may bring unwanted consequences for
taxonomy. In our view, the lack of steady publication by
some taxonomists is merely a symptom of the supposed
‘taxonomic impediment’ and not a major cause of it (like
Evenhuis, by ‘impediment’ we mean the alleged slowdown
in taxonomy; see also Crisci 2006a, p. 219).
We concede that there are taxonomists who fail to
produce what is expected from them, and that their lack of
publication constitutes a substantial barrier to progress.
But, realistically, this is a predicament common to every
branch of science and should not be offered solely as a sin
of certain taxonomists; addressing the real reasons behind
such cases would be, in effect, a more productive discus-
sion. Furthermore, Evenhuis’ characterization of his
particular example may be misconstrued as a general
phenomenon, leading to a mistaken view of taxonomic
science by policy-makers, conservationists, and other
external readers. It is our belief that the reasons behind
many such cases of unproductivity result from general
shortcomings affecting taxonomic science in general, and
not that taxonomy and society are at the mercy of idle and
indisposed professionals.
The relevance, or lack thereof, of current taxonomic
methods for the challenges of the 21st Century has been a
topic of much recent debate in the scientific literature (e.g.
Tautz et al. 2002; Godfray 2002,2007; Thiele and Yeates
2002; Knapp et al. 2002; Seberg et al. 2003; Lipscomb
et al. 2003; Scotland et al. 2003; Godfray and Knapp 2004;
Wheeler 2004; Wheeler et al. 2004; Carvalho et al. 2005;
Crisci 2006a; Carvalho et al. 2007), as well as in the socio-
political arena (see AMNAT 2006). In our view, Evenhuis’
(2007) critique cannot be divorced from this greater con-
text. We approach this issue from the perspective of
professional taxonomists who see their science as the fre-
quent target of criticism by conservationists, ecologists,
population geneticists, and other professionals who all too
frequently fail to understand the true scientific and episte-
mological nature of taxonomy and systematics (terms for
which we hold the same implicit meaning; see also
Wheeler 2007). The comments presented below are not
meant to be a reply to Evenhuis, but instead deal with
broader issues (and some slogans) that are commonly laid
bare in the multifarious and growing forum on the so-called
‘taxonomic impediment’.
A Dearth of Resources?
The first factor to consider as a possible cause of the
supposed publication deceleration in taxonomy is funding.
Taxonomy as a worthy scientific endeavor is undeniably at
risk when universities do not hire taxonomists and uni-
versity collections are threatened with dissolution. Many
non-molecular systematists in particular have experienced
difficulty in obtaining funding for their research. These are
indications that organismal biology is presently going
through a phase of ‘marginalization’ (Cotterill 1995;
Dalton 2003; Gropp 2003,2004; Suarez and Tsutsui 2004;
Raven 2004; Schmidly 2005; Flowers 2007a), even though
we are deeply embedded in a ‘biodiversity crisis’ (Wilson
2003a). This paradox has resulted in a palpable sense of
isolation affecting many taxonomists nested in university
departments wherein the majority of faculty are biochem-
ists, physiologists, molecular biologists, and other ‘big lab’
professionals who usually have greater amounts of funding
and frequently work (and publish) in teams. These taxon-
omists have been referred to as the ‘invisible poor of
taxonomy’, who often only ‘exist outside the the inner
circle of large institutions and grants’ (Flowers 2007b,
p. 5), and who may even form a substantial part of the
working taxonomic force (Lo
¨bl and Leschen 2005).
We agree with Evenhuis (2007) that taxonomists need to
do more to overturn this scenario, and increasing publication
output is clearly a step in the right direction. But significant
results have been obtained when proper funding for taxon-
omy has been made available (e.g. Rodman and Cody 2003;
Sabaj et al. 2003), corroborating that the ‘impediment’ is
really a result of the lack of initiative, and not a cause of it. So
why have not such positive funding initiatives been repeated
ad nauseum in order to ebb the ‘biodiversity crisis’, espe-
cially in countries in which considerable funding is available
(cf. Landrum 2001; Flowers 2007a)? An affirmative and
relatively inexpensive example was set in Brazil, wherein
increased funding for student and post-doc fellowships, field
collecting, and other crucial aspects of the taxonomic
enterprise, coupled with the hiring of taxonomists by uni-
versities, has enormously increased publication rates in
taxonomy (just the program ‘Taxonomic Capacitation’
launched in 2006 by the federal granting agency CAPES has
already benefitted more than 125 researchers;
http://www.capes.gov.br). This publication increase
Evol Biol
123

concerns not only the description of new species, but also in
the generation of general hypotheses related to biodiversity
research, such as the elucidation of evolutionary history,
delimitation of areas of endemism, and detection of zones of
maximal diversity. This demonstrates that not only a fair
amount of funding is needed, but also an appropriate policy
for the long-term development of systematics (see also
Cotterill 1995; McNeely 2002; Schmidly 2005; Flowers
2007a). This policy must also take into account the mainte-
nance and augmentation of scientific collections, as well as
the re-identification of their included specimens to guarantee
their currency and avoid the propagation of misidentifica-
tions (Meier and Dikow 2004; Wheeler 2004).
Critics of the traditional taxonomic paradigm may be
portentous competitors for the limited financing available
in the modern scientific world (Lipscomb et al. 2003;
Flowers 2007b). Are resources that should be destined to
taxonomists being usurped by those who need the products
of taxonomic research? This viewpoint is still somewhat
controversial, but is apparent at least in the skewed division
of funding in some biodiversity mega-projects, wherein
only a small fraction of the funds, if any, are dedicated to
‘real’ taxonomy (i.e. for the production of primary taxo-
nomic information, such as species descriptions), while
most of the money goes to ‘secondary’ aspects (such as
databasing and internet availability; the Global Biodiver-
sity Information Facility [GBIF] is one such example). One
worker even concluded that web-based taxonomy and
database initiatives that simply apply ‘new technology to
existing data rather than generating new data [have] mop-
ped up a not inconsiderable fraction of the available money
during the Biodiversity Decade’ (Flowers 2007b, p. 5). In
the same vein, systematists are constantly being instructed
on how to become more relevant to other biologists in
order to obtain greater funding (Godfray and Knapp 2004;
Gotelli 2004; Godfray 2007), as if somehow our long-term
survival should depend on the degree to which we satisfy
the needs of researchers in other biological subdisciplines.
There is really no doubt that taxonomists may indeed
benefit from a more inclusive mindset, especially in terms of
obtaining funding through collaborative research projects
which include a strong systematic component. But theoret-
ical and epistemological progress must ultimately be driven
from within—in order to be truly useful to other biological
sciences, and society in general, systematics cannot com-
promise its much-earned theoretical identity and overall
independence. Systematists, however, must bear in mind
that this can be accomplished while simultaneously making
our results amenable to the general scientific community.
The use of highly structured phylogenetic information in
studies of comparative physiology, for example, is a strong
example of how systematics can be pivotal in the develop-
ment of other branches of science (Garland et al. 2005).
‘Taxonomy Needs Evolution, not Revolution’
(Knapp et al. 2002)
Many critics of taxonomy simply do not understand the
real dimensions of biodiversity, even though they pay
considerable lip-service to it. Biodiversity knowledge
encompasses not only an extraordinary number of ‘taxo-
nomic names’, but also an extraordinary amount of
variation—morphological, behavioral, and molecular—
embodied by the natural entities represented by those
names. An appropriate depiction of taxonomic complexity
is a matrix with hundreds of thousands of characters on one
axis and thousands of organisms on the other, with millions
of data points filling in the spaces (eventually optimized as
relationships, i.e. taxa). How much of this colossal amount
of information should be at the hands of any single tax-
onomist? And how many taxonomists are working on the
evolution of hyper-diverse groups, such as fungi, beetles,
bacteria, flowering plants, fishes, nematodes, mollusks,
flies, birds, etc.? The discrepancy between the amount of
unknown taxa and those that need revision (the ‘staggering
number of specifics’ of Vane-Wright 1996), on one side,
and the overall lack of professional taxonomists in uni-
versities and even in museums, on the other, may
contribute to the sense of isolation felt by professional
taxonomists (Wilson 2003a).
Evenhuis’ (2007) quick-step list of procedures was
provided to facilitate the description of new species and
thereby overcome at least this aspect of the taxonomic
impediment. To Evenhuis, therefore, it seems that what
needs to be presently optimized in taxonomic science is a
greater availability of species names, a viewpoint also held
by critics of modern taxonomy (see Tautz et al. 2002;
Godfray 2002; Tautz et al. 2003; Hebert et al. 2003; Gas-
ton and O’Neill 2004; Janzen 2004; Godfray 2007). In
particular, Evenhuis’ (2007) Step 6 (‘enjoyment of
describing’, p. 10) shows how to expedite the descriptive
process: species descriptions in diverse taxa could simply
follow an automated style based on a template description
which is changed according to the taxon being described. If
even this proves to be too much, Evenhuis states that it is
possible to describe new species solely on the basis of the
minimal amount of taxonomic information needed to be
accepted by current biological codes, although he does not
sanction this approach himself: ‘in zoology, one only needs
to describe characters that differentiate one taxon from
another. At a minimum, one could theoretically say
‘‘Yellow, 20 mm long’’ and that would validate the
description and naming of a new taxon’ (pp. 10–11).
It is true that such a terse account is acceptable
according to the zoological code of nomenclature, but is it
desirable, especially for a branch of science endowed with
a strong epistemological commitment? Taken to the letter,
Evol Biol
123

this minimalist approach may further promote superficial-
ity and lack of professionalism in taxonomy, although
clearly leading to faster species descriptions. But quickly
describing alleged ‘species’ without the proper systematic
foundation will result in nothing more than a hodgepodge
of names that may not refer to any real units in nature.
These names are therefore not only useless for taxonomy
itself but also for inferences about character and taxic
evolution, historical biogeography, and conservation
(Vane-Wright 1996; Wheeler and Platnick 2000; Wheeler
2004; Santos and Amorim 2007). In other words, even
though ‘quantity’ is presently needed from taxonomy, it
cannot come at the expense of ‘quality’, as taxonomic
names corresponding to flawed hypotheses of biological
entities will compromise the reliability of systematic
information for society. The current nomenclatural codes
should take direct steps to eradicate, and not endorse,
minimalism and amateurism from taxonomy.
This fundamental ignorance of the systematic praxis by
users of taxonomic products (i.e., in over-emphasizing spe-
cies names and their distributions as the primary units to
guide conservation efforts and environmental policy), fur-
ther ignores two primary aspects of systematics: (1) that only
monophyletic units, independent of their rank, must be
understood as ‘natural entities’ (and therefore real, subject to
conservation); and (2) that the organismal collectives which
are described as species, and that receive formal binomials,
do not necessarily correspond to natural, monophyletic units.
Species names are intuitive resources indispensable for
purposes of communication and organization of information
at the species level, but in themselves do not necessarily
contain any real scientific value since many species are
simply not corroborated as monophyletic (and there is still
disagreement concerning the issue of whether species must
be monophyletic; e.g. Wheeler and Meier 2000). Conser-
vation efforts should be aimed at monophyletic units, not at
binomials devoid of real existence.
Moreover, taxa (of all levels) are hypotheses of rela-
tionships which may change with further analysis,
reinforcing the true scientific nature of systematics. The
incorporation of phylogenetic hypotheses to revisionary
studies has, in fact, added an extra dimension to the labor
of taxonomists. In recognizing that real entities are what
systematists need to provide to conservationists and other
biologists, ‘biodiversity’ takes on a new meaning—one
associated with monophyletic groups (historical hypothe-
ses), reinforcing that taxonomic revisions need to be even
more inclusive in terms of data and theoretical underpin-
ning. The revision of the neotropical freshwater fish genus
Steindachnerina serves as an example (Vari 1991).
Twenty-one species were recognized as valid, of which two
were described as new. But the number of hypotheses
erected that are relevant to comparative biology in general
is much greater, including the hypothesis of monophyly of
the genus and eight of its species (13 species could not be
corroborated as monophyletic), in addition to 12 other
hypotheses of monophyly related to groups of species. For
users of taxonomic end-products, then, this revision indi-
cated that many previously recognized ‘units’ should not,
perhaps, be taken into account due to their non-monophyly,
and that others, previously undetected, must also be con-
sidered. A thorough revision, therefore, provides a sound
and scientifically testable guide to conservation.
Original work on a new species should, consequently,
include at least a detailed characterization of its morphology
or molecular design, as well as insights concerning its phy-
logenetic relationships. It is just such knowledge that may
prove essential to ecologists or conservationists (Stiassny
1992; Stiassny and de Pinna 1994; Purvis et al. 2005; Ennos
et al. 2005; Forest et al. 2007). This may account for at least
some of the perceived apathy in publishing new species as
some taxonomists strive to do more inclusive work. In other
words, we should not be so preoccupied about expediting the
descriptive process, but rather in making it more meticulous
and evolutionarily relevant. Is it better to have huge numbers
of nominal species available but devoid of this relevant
information, or fewer numbers of natural (monophyletic)
entities, independent of rank, that are better characterized
morphologically, molecularly, and evolutionarily, and
which therefore are more reliable guides to conservation?
Indeed, the usefulness of taxonomic information after its
publication is strictly dependent on the robustness of its
holomorphological (including behavioral and molecular)
and evolutionary characterization. Users of taxonomic end-
products, such as other biologists and conservationists, need
to understand these points in order to move beyond the
misconception that taxonomic science is simply about
making species names available (see also Lipscomb et al.
2003; Wheeler 2004,2005; Prendini 2005; Carvalho et al.
2005; Crisci 2006a; Carvalho et al. 2007). Afterall, these
same users will certainly feel cheated if the taxonomic
information supplied to them proves to be unreliable.
‘Historical Amnesia’ and the Flawed Appraisal
of Taxonomy
The above considerations bring us to perhaps an unex-
pected situation—that there has been, at least for certain
groups, an increase in the number of taxonomic papers, in
the number of described species, in the quality of those
descriptions, in the number of pages in those papers, and in
the heuristic value of the hypotheses proposed—and all
within a general environment, world over, of reduced
funding. After some 250 years of formal taxonomic work,
the rate in which new species are described has indeed
Evol Biol
123

increased for many groups (but not for all, of course),
indicating that the perceived slowdown in productivity by
taxonomists is partly fallacious even if we employ this
criterion—mistaken in our view—as a yard-stick.
As an example, we highlight the description of new
species of fishes, which has seen a substantial increase in
the last few decades (Eschmeyer and Froese 1999; Nelson
2006). This is made quite clear when comparing the four
editions of Nelson’s Fishes of the World, the standard text-
book treating fish diversity (published in 1976, 1984, 1994
and 2006). In particular, neotropical fishes have been the
subject of much revisional research and new species
descriptions (see Reis et al. 2003; Buckup et al. 2007).
Amphibians represent another such case; almost half of the
known species inhabiting Brazil, which detains the most
diverse amphibian fauna, have been described in the last
40 years (Pimenta et al. 2005). Many other examples could
be listed here (e.g. neotropical ants; Wilson 2003b). So
why does the ‘taxonomic witch-hunt’ of late persist (e.g.
Godfray 2007) if taxonomists are capable of demonstrating
substantial growth on their own?
There seem to be two causes for this mistaken evaluation
of taxonomy. The first is that complaints against taxonomy
really have nothing to do with taxonomic work per se, but
rather correspond to the earnest desire of having all of
earth’s biodiversity described in face of the ongoing envi-
ronmental onslaught. Of course, species extinction is not in
any way the particular responsibility of the taxonomist—
our ability to save species or environments is not immedi-
ately jeopardized by the lack of taxonomic names. The
other factor is that there appear to be undeclared interests
behind the ‘speeding up’ of the availability of taxonomic
products. Recent criticisms of taxonomy appear to be self-
serving, concealing an agenda—the promotion of ‘quicker’,
mechanized methods for taxonomic research. This is by no
means the case of Evenhuis’ (2007) comments, but of the
recent reductionist approach of automated molecular tax-
onomy such as DNA barcoding (Hebert et al. 2003; Blaxter
2004; Barrett and Hebert 2005; Godfray 2007; Miller 2007).
Perhaps it has already been forgotten that phenetic tax-
onomy tried a very similar approach not too long ago. With
the availability of calculators and computers in the late 1950s
and early 1960s, there was great optimism concerning the
development of an operational, quicker, and ‘non-subjective’
taxonomy, strongly propagated by non-evolutionary taxon-
omists. Twenty-five years later, the founders of this approach
had to abandon its principles because they realized that the
taxa they proposed, both at the species level and above it, had
no real connection with nature (Farris 1977,1979,1983).
In some measure we are now experiencing a ‘molecular-
operational’ remake of this movie, even though we are
already familiar with how it ends (previous remakes starred
electrophoresis, cytogenetics, and DNA hybridization).
Incongruent molecular hypotheses for the same taxa pub-
lished in the last two decades has led to the realization that
there is also much conflict in molecular data, not to men-
tion the outstanding methodological issues related to gene
choice, sequence alignment, and tree construction (e.g.
DeSalle et al. 2002; Naylor et al. 2005; Prendini 2005).
Even proponents of barcoding have concluded that without
a strong taxonomic foundation the method is ineffective
(Meyer and Paulay 2005; see also the cogent remarks of
Will and Rubinoff 2004; Ebach and Holdrege 2005;
Wheeler 2005; Prendini 2005; DeSalle et al. 2005). As
stated by a leading molecular systematist, ‘[i]n a taxonomic
context DNA sequence information in the absence of other
corroborating evidence can never be used by itself as an
indicator of species delimitation’ (DeSalle 2006, p. 1545).
This fundamental discussion about the nature and
acquisition of molecular data should be an integral part of
the debate concerning the lack of greater speed in
describing new species, given the ‘one minute-one
sequence-one name’ (Janzen 2004, p. 732) frenzy of the
quick-fix strategists. We strongly adhere to the maxim
(Ebach and Holdrege 2005, p. 697) that ‘DNA barcoding
generates information, not knowledge’—if not a taxonomic
specialist, who, then, will define the species in question?
Therefore, does the implementation of this method not
require, beforehand, a robust taxonomy? Paraphrasing
these same authors, it is pertinent to inquire ‘[h]ow long
will it be until even the specimen is no longer necessary to
understand the organism?’ Within the current mood beck-
oning the ‘Big Machine of DNA automation’ to the rescue,
the organism is, little by little, being relegated to the trash-
heap. Meanwhile, proponents of automation continue to
conflate species delimitation with species identification
(e.g. Barrett and Hebert 2005; Godfray 2007), demon-
strating their fundamental ignorance concerning taxonomic
science (Lipscomb et al. 2003; Prendini 2005; Wheeler
2005). It seems that a form of ‘historical amnesia’ reap-
pears in systematics from time to time as old tendencies
creep back into vogue, albeit usually under a new guise
(Nelson 2004). In the current automation paradigm, we
may have, indeed, the erection (or resurrection) of a nou-
veau phenetics—one employing DNA barcodes.
Trivializing Taxonomy—the ‘Do it Yourself’ Dictum
Another source of renewed criticism to taxonomy has come
from proponents of web-based initiatives that aim to
become repositories of taxonomic information. Some have
even declared that the triumvirate ‘unitary taxonomic
cyberstructure +automated DNA barcoding +molecular
phylogeny’ will save taxonomy from its downfall and
modernize management of the biodoversity crisis. The
Evol Biol
123

same proponents of this sheer pragmatism have charac-
terized taxonomy as a ‘do it yourself’ science, especially
given available technology and its constantly reducing
costs. In other words, according to these critics, with the
right equipment and software, and making full use of one-
stop, web-based taxonomic shopping, ecologists or other
non-taxonomists can simply (and finally!) do away with the
dusty, sluggish, and idiosyncratic systematist and deal
directly with species identification and phylogeny—tech-
nology, after all, has rendered these complex issues a
simple matter of ‘cooking’ (see Grant et al. 2003 for a
critique of ‘point-and-click’ systematics).
The most declared advocate of the ‘do it yourself’
school is Godfray (2007). In light of the rebuttals published
by taxonomists addressing previous commentary on these
issues (Thiele and Yeates 2002; Knapp et al. 2002; Seberg
et al. 2003; Lipscomb et al. 2003; Scotland et al. 2003),
including a detailed one in a recent colloquium co-orga-
nized by Godfray himself (Wheeler 2004), we are left
wondering why his fanfare was repackaged and delivered
anew. Perhaps Godfray’s (2007) essay was calculated to
further his own database initiative, a unitary, web-based
taxonomic repository that will ‘be self-contained and
require reference to no other sources’ (Godfray 2002,p.
17). According to Godfray (2007), even Linnaeus would
have supported it, for he would have been a ‘techie’—a
revisionist strategy employed to recruit that great luminary
in support of Godfray’s own cause. Our contention here, of
course, has nothing to do with web-based tools or tech-
nology itself, but with a concerted directive to discredit
‘traditional’ or ‘established’ systematics—using our foun-
ders against us is just straws in the wind.
The ‘do it yourself’ catchphrase can never represent, by
any standard, a healthy prescription for a scientific
endeavor. If ecologists, population geneticists, and other
biologists prefer to have quick species names and even
quicker phylogenetic trees at their disposal—and without a
deeper appreciation for their essential qualities as hypoth-
eses—then, perhaps, they should simply not rely on
systematic information at all. These biologists clearly do
not wish to embrace an ‘ahistorical’ paradigm, which
would be overly anachronistic, but in some way that is the
effect of the ‘do it yourself’ mindset. What can be more
important in science than an unreserved concern for data
(characters) and methods of analysis (optimality criteria)?
An Overture for Taxonomy
Research oriented, professional taxonomists must take the
bull by the horns and raise their voice against the many
criticisms that have diverted the discussion from how to
increase the successful, ongoing taxonomic undertaking, to
an attempt to substitute the current paradigm for a reduc-
tionist-pragmatist one. Balance in employing different
sources of data and methods that are in fact constructive are
essential to maintain steady progress in systematics (Crisci
2006b). But systematists must bear some blame here as
well—qui tacet consentire videtur (‘he who keeps silent is
assumed to consent’). Evenhuis (2007) is correct in par-
tially blaming taxonomists for at least some of the
supposed taxonomic slowdown, but not necessarily for the
reasons he advocates. In our view, the coherent remarks of
Crisci (2006a, p. 219), in describing the intellectual climate
surrounding systematics, are more to the point: ‘…the
climate of opinion depends on who speaks and who keeps
quiet, [which is described by social scientists] as a ‘‘spiral
of silence’’ …’. And, as a consequence, ‘[e]ditors, peers,
administrators, and [some] policy-makers become enforc-
ers of a vox populi-vox dei [in support of] molecular
systematics’, leading to a ‘new kind of superficiality …
where technological advance is equated with conceptual
progress’. Conceptual progress is achieved only when tied
to a strong epistemological basis, and not by the mere
application of technical innovations—science is ultimately
much more about the meaning of information than about
information in and of itself.
For taxonomy to be effective for science and useful for
society in general what is needed is more than species names
or undemanding ‘taxon-tags’—taxonomy needs in-depth
studies of evolution. We must move beyond the slogan that a
faster, minimally informative, two-dimensional and algo-
rithmic approach to species descriptions will save taxonomy
from irrelevance—superficiality will not advance taxo-
nomic science. Taxonomists must provide robust
hypotheses about real (monophyletic), natural entities, and
about the relationships of the areas they inhabit. In other
words, taxonomists must do more—they must embrace the
integrative strength of comparative biology (Hennig 1966;
Nelson and Platnick 1981; Rieppel 1988) and remain
focused on substantiating the ‘general reference system’,
which is by no means an outcry for quicker publication.
Acknowledgments The authors are supported by the Fundac¸a
˜ode
Amparo a
`Pesquisa do Estado de Sa
˜o Paulo (Fapesp) and Conselho
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientı
´fico e Tecnolo
´gico (CNPq). We
thank numerous colleagues for discussing the issues here presented, in
particular Bob Schelly and Jorge Crisci, as well as one anonymous
reviewer.
References
AMNAT (Org.) (2006). Biodiversity—the megascience in focus.
Outcomes and recommendations. Organized by Associac¸a
˜o
Memoria Naturalis, Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional.
Barrett, R. D. H., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2005). Identifying spiders
through DNA barcodes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83(3),
481–491.
Evol Biol
123

Blaxter, M. L. (2004). The promise of a DNA taxonomy. Philosoph-
ical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 669–
679.
Buckup, P., Menezes, N. A. & Ghazzi, M. (Eds.) (2007). Cata
´logo
das Espe
´cies de Peixes de A
´gua Doce do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro:
Museu Nacional.
de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., de Vivo, M., de
Toledo-Piza, M., Menezes, N. A., de Figueiredo, J. L., Castro, R.
M. C., Gill, A. C., McEachran, J. D., Compagno, L. J. V.,
Schelly, R. C., Britz, R., Lundberg, J. G., Vari, R. P., & Nelson,
G. (2005). Revisiting the taxonomic impediment. Science, 307,
353.
de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., Branda
˜o, C. R.
F, de Vivo, M., de Figueiredo, J. L., Britski, H. A., de Pinna, M.
C. C., Menezes, N. A., Marques, F. P. L., Papavero, N.,
Cancello, E. M., Crisci, J. V., McEachran, J. D., Schelly, R. C.,
Lundberg, J. G., Gill, A. C., Britz, R., Wheeler, Q. D., Stiassny,
M. L. J., Parenti, L. R., Page, L. M., Wheeler, W. C., Faivovich,
J., Vari, R. P., Grande, L., Humphries, C. J., DeSalle, R., Ebach,
M. C., & Nelson, G. J. (2007). Taxonomic impediment or
impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the
cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evolutionary Biology, 3/
4, 140–143.
Cotterill, F. P. D. (1995). Systematics, biological knowledge and
environmental conservation. Biodiversity & Conservation, 4,
183–205.
Crisci, J. V. (2006a). One-dimensional systematists: Perils in a time
of steady progress. Systematic Botany, 31(1), 215–219.
Crisci, J. V. (2006b). Making taxonomy visible. Systematic Botany,
31(2), 439–440.
Dalton, R. (2003). Natural history collections in crisis as funding is
slashed. Nature, 423, 575.
DeSalle, R. (2006). Species discovery versus species identification in
DNA barcoding efforts: Response to Rubinoff. Conservation
Biology, 20(5), 1545–1547.
DeSalle, R., Giribet, G. & Wheeler, W. C. (Eds.) (2002). Molecular
systematics and evolution: Theory and practice. Berlin:
Birkha
¨user.
DeSalle, R., Egan, M. G., & Siddall, M. (2005). The unholy trinity:
Taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding. Philo-
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 360,
1905–1916.
Ebach, M. C., & Holdrege, C. (2005). DNA barcoding is no substitute
for taxonomy. Nature, 434, 697.
Ennos, R. A., French, G. C., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (2005).
Conserving taxonomic complexity. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 20(4), 164–168.
Eschmeyer, W. N., & Froese, R. (1999). The statistics of ichthyology.
Abstracts of the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (p. 99). University Park: Penn
State University.
Evenhuis, N. L. (2007). Helping solve the ‘‘other’’ taxonomic
impediment: completing the eight steps to total enlightenment
and taxonomic Nirvana. Zootaxa, 1407, 3–12.
Farris, J. S. (1977). On the phenetic approach to vertebrate
classification. In: Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C. & Hecht, B. M.
(Eds.), Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. NATO Advanced
Study Institute Series, no. 14 (pp. 823–850). New York: Plenum
Press.
Farris, J. S. (1979). The information content of the phylogenetic
system. Systematic Zoology, 28, 483–519.
Farris, J. S. (1983). The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In:
Platnick, N. I. & Funk, V. (Eds.), Advances in cladistics 2 (pp.
7–36). New York: Columbia University Press.
Flowers, R. W. (2007a). Comments on ‘‘Helping solve the ‘other’
taxonomic impediment: Completing the eight steps to total
enlightenment and taxonomic Nirvana’’ by Evenhuis (2007).
Zootaxa, 1494, 67–68.
Flowers, R. W. (2007b). Taxonomy’s unexamined impediment. The
Systematist, 28, 3–7.
Forest, F., Grenyer, R., Rouget, M., Davies T. J., Cowling, R. M.,
Faith, D. P., Balmford, A., Manning, J. C., Proches, S., van der
Bank, M., Reeves, G., Hedderson, T. A. J., & Savolainen, V.
(2007). Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in
biodiversity hotspots. Nature, 445, 757–760.
Garland T., Bennett, A. F., & Rezende, E. L. (2005). Phylogenetic
approaches in comparative physiology. The Journal of Exper-
imental Biology, 208, 3015–3035.
Gaston, K. J., & O’Neill, M. A. (2004). Automated species
identification: Why not? Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London B, 359, 655–667.
Godfray, H. C. J. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417, 17–19.
Godfray, H. C. J. (2007). Linnaeus in the information age. Nature,
446, 259–260.
Godfray, H. C. J., & Knapp, S. (2004). Introduction. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 559–569.
Gotelli, N. J. (2004). A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B,
359, 585–597.
Grant, T., Faivovich, J., & Pol, D. (2003). The perils of ‘point-and-
click’ systematics. Cladistics, 19, 276–285.
Gropp, R. E. (2003). Are university natural science collections going
extinct? BioScience, 5, 550.
Gropp, R. E. (2004). Threatened species: University natural science
collections in the United States. Systematics & Biodiversity, 1(3),
285–286.
Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & deWaard, J. R. (2003).
Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 313–321.
Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: Univ. of
Illinois Press.
Janzen, D. H. (2004). Now is the time. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London B, 359, 731–732.
Knapp, S., Bateman, R. M., Chalmers, N. R., Humphries, C. J.,
Rainbow, P. S., Smith, A. B., Taylor, P. D., Vane-Wright, R. I.,
& Wilkinson, M. (2002). Taxonomy needs evolution, not
revolution. Nature, 419, 559.
Landrum, L. R. (2001). What has happened to descriptive system-
atics? What would make it thrive? Systematic Botany, 26(2),
438–442.
Lipscomb, D., Platnick, N., & Wheeler, Q. (2003). The intellectual
content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 65–66.
Lo
¨bl, I., & Leschen, R. A. B. (2005). Demography of coleopterists
and their thoughts on DNA barcoding and the Phylocode, with
commentary. Coleoptera Bulletin, 59, 284–292.
McNeely, J. A. (2002). The role of taxonomy in conserving
biodiversity. Journal of Nature Conservation, 10, 145–153.
Meier, R., & Dikow, T. (2004). The significance of specimen
databases from taxonomic revisions for estimating and mapping
global species diversity of invertebrates and repatriating reliable
specimen data. Conservation Biology, 18(2), 478–488.
Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005). DNA barcoding: Error rates based
on comprehensive sampling. PloS Biology, 3(12), 2229–2238.
Miller, S. E. (2007). DNA barcoding and the renaissance of
taxonomy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
104(12), 4775–4776.
Naylor, G. J. P., Ryburn, J. A., Fedrigo, O., & Lo
´pez, J. A. (2005).
Phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of modern
elasmobranchs. In: Hamlett, W. C. (Eds.), Reproductive biology
and phylogeny of Chondrichthyes (pp. 1–26). Enfield: Science
Press.
Evol Biol
123

Nelson, G. (2004). Cladistics: Its arrested development. In: Williams,
D. M. & Forey, P. L. (Eds.), Milestones in systematics: The
development of comparative biology, (pp. 127–147). London:
Taylor and Francis.
Nelson, G., & Platnick, N. (1981). Systematics and biogeography,
cladistics and vicariance. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Nelson, J. S. (2006). Fishes of the world (4th ed.). New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Pimenta, B. V. S., Haddad, C. F. B., Nascimento, L. B., Cruz, C. A.
G., & Pombal, J. P., Jr. (2005). Comment on ‘‘Status and trends
of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide’’. Science, 309,
1999b.
Prendini, L. (2005). Comments on ‘‘identifying spiders through DNA
barcodes’’. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83(3), 498–504.
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., & Brooks, T. (2005). Phylogeny and
conservation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Raven, P. H. (2004). Taxonomy: Where are we now? Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 729–730.
Reis, R. E., Kullander, S. O. & Ferraris, C. J., Jr. (Eds.) (2003).
Check-list of the freshwater fishes from South and Central
America. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS.
Rieppel, O. C. (1988). Fundamentals of comparative biology. Basel:
Birha
¨user.
Rodman, J. E., & Cody, J. H. (2003). The taxonomic impediment
overcome: NSF’s partnerships for enhancing expertise in taxon-
omy (PEET) as a model. Systematic Biology, 52(3), 428–435.
Sabaj, M. H., Armbruster, J. W., Ferraris, Jr., C. J., Friel, J. P.,
Lundberg, J. G. & Page, L. M. (2003). The all catfish species
inventory (Eds.). Internet address: http://silurus.acnatsci.org/.
Santos, C. M. D., & Amorim, D. S. (2007). Why biogeographical
hypotheses need a well supported phylogenetic framework: A
conceptual evaluation. Pape
´is Avulsos de Zoologia, 47(4), 63–73.
Schmidly, D. J. (2005). What it means to be a naturalist and the future
of natural history at American universities. Journal of Mammal-
ogy, 86(3), 449–456.
Scotland, R., Hughes, C., Bailey, D., & Wortley, A. (2003). The big
machine and the much-maligned taxonomist. Systematics &
Biodiversity, 1(2), 139–143.
Seberg, O., Humphries, C. J., Knapp, S., Stevenson, D. W., Petersen,
G., Scharff, N., & Andersen, N. M. (2003). Shortcuts in
systematics? A commentary on DNA-based taxonomy. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 63–65.
Stiassny, M. L. J. (1992). Phylogenetic analysis and the role of
systematics in the biodiversity crisis. In: Eldredge, N. (Ed.),
Systematics, ecology and the biodiversity crisis (pp. 109–120).
New York: Columbia University Press.
Stiassny, M. L. J., & de Pinna, M. C. C. (1994). Basal taxa and the
role of cladistic patterns in the evaluation of conservation
priorities: A view from freshwater. In: Forey, P. L., Humphries,
C. J., & Vane-Wright, R. I. (Eds.), Systematics and conservation
evaluation (pp. 235–249). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Suarez, A. V., & Tsutsui, N. D. (2004). The value of museum
collections for research and society. BioScience, 54(1), 66–74.
Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H., & Vogler, A. P.
(2002). DNA points the way ahead in taxonomy. Nature, 418,
479.
Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H., & Vogler, A. P.
(2003). A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 18(2), 70–74.
Thiele, K., & Yeates, D. (2002). Tension arises from duality at the
heart of taxonomy. Nature, 419, 337.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (1996). Systematics and the conservation of
biological diversity. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden,
83, 47–57.
Vari, R. P. (1991). Systematics of the neotropical characiform genus
Steindachnerina Fowler (Pisces: Ostariophysi). Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology, 507, 1–118.
Wheeler, Q. D. (2004). Taxonomic triage and the poverty of
phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London B, 359, 571–583.
Wheeler, Q. D. (2005). Losing the plot: DNA ‘‘barcodes’’ and
taxonomy. Cladistics, 21(4), 405–407.
Wheeler, Q. D. (2007). Invertebrate systematics or spineless taxon-
omy? In: Zhang, Z. -Q. & Shear, W. A. (Eds.), Linnaeus
tercentenary: Progress in invertebrate taxonomy, Zootaxa,1668,
pp. 11–18.
Wheeler, Q. D., & Meier, R. (Eds.) (2000). Species concepts and
phylogenetic theory: A debate. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Wheeler, Q. D., & Platnick, N. (2000). The phylogenetic species
concept (sensu Wheeler and Platnick). In: Wheeler, Q. D. &
Meier, R. (Eds.), Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A
debate (pp. 55–69). New York: Columbia University Press.
Wheeler, Q. D., Raven, P. H., & Wilson, E. O. (2004). Taxonomy:
Impediment or expedient? Science, 303, 285.
Will, K. W., & Rubinoff, D. (2004). Myth of the molecule: DNA
barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identifica-
tion and classification. Cladistics, 20(1), 47–55.
Wilson, E. O. (2003a). The encyclopedia of life. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 18(2), 77–80.
Wilson, E. O. (2003b). Pheidole in the new world: A dominant,
hyperdiverse ant genus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Evol Biol
123