Taxonomy in a Changing World: Seeking Solutions for a Science in Crisis

Abstract

One of the fundamental quests of biology is learning what organisms inhabit the earth. To date approximately 2 million species have been described, with realistic estimates of actual diversity ranging from 4 to 12 million (Stork, 1997; Reaka-Kudla et al., 1997). But while species are disappearing at an ever increasing rate (Pimm and Raven, 2000; Thomas et al., 2004), species discovery and description—taxonomy—is facing a crisis (Wilson, 2004; Wheeler, 2004). Overcoming this “taxonomic impediment” (Rodman and Cody, 2003) is the primary goal of the ambitious and ongoing NSF PEET (Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy) initiative (NSF, 1994), which has enjoyed much success in training a new generation of taxonomists (Rodman and Cody, 2003). To help estimate the impact of the NSF-PEET initiative and the status of taxonomy, we surveyed the trainees from the 1995 and 1997 NSF-PEET cohorts. PEET meetings have optimistically labeled the program as the renaissance of taxonomy (see also Wheeler, 2004). But as many PEET alumni (peetsters) are experiencing, taxonomic expertise is rarely required, or even relevant, when it comes to securing a job, especially in academia. Furthermore, most top-ranking evolutionary journals do not consider taxonomic revisions, and only allow species descriptions in exceptional cases of certain high-profile fossils and mammals (e.g., Jones et al., 2005; Gess et al., 2006). Further, some lower ranking journals reject taxonomic descriptions unless in a paper on a broader subject (e.g., the Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research; see author guidelines at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/jzs). Journals focusing on taxonomy typically have low measured impact, even the new and vibrant, rapid and interactive Zootaxa, which is enjoying an extraordinary and unprecedented growth among scientific journals and can be characterized as a “mega-journal” (Zhang, 2006; unofficial IF 2005 = 0.45). Taxonomic descriptions are—not necessarily by fact (see below), but by convention—low-impact scientific publications, barring those of newly discovered bird species, large mammals, or certain fossils.