- Email: [email protected]
A worrying systematic decline
POSTSCRIPT
A worrying systematic decline
M
ost of the earth’s species remain undescribed and are going extinct at an alarming rate. Our understanding of these species will be based largely on morphological studies, because resource-intensive molecular evaluations will only be directed at a few charismatic (often vertebrate) forms. However, the scientists most needed during this biodiversity bottleneck – ‘traditional’ taxonomists – are themselves disappearing. This loss of biological expertise will be irreplaceable. Although systematic research has increased, the boom has been largely molecular. The number of morphological taxonomists is dwindling1, and at a recent systematics meeting (Systematics Association Second Biennial Conference, University of Glasgow, UK, 1999), many taxonomists were surprised that nearly all talks on plants, and most on microbes and animals, were exclusively molecular. Molecular phylogenetics is receiving an increasing proportion of research funds and the plight of traditional taxonomists has been highlighted by the recent ‘cash for new species’ debate, where benefactors provide research funds in return for rights to name newly described species2. These demographic and funding trends are reflected in research output over the past 20 years. The total number of papers published per year in the two general systematics journals Systematic Biology and Cladistics has risen steadily, and the number of molecular studies has exploded; however, the number of studies analysing morphology has fallen. There has also been a boom in new journals publishing molecular, but not morphological, systematic studies (Molecular Biology and Evolution, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Molecular Ecology and Molecular Entomology). Conversely, there have been far fewer new journals devoted to morphological taxonomy and some (e.g. Philosophical Transactions B) have ceased publishing empirical taxonomic monographs. Methods for evaluating research output, such as counting the number or measuring the short-term citation impact of publications, further discourage detailed taxonomic treatises, which are not widely cited immediately after publication but often become long-lived classics3. This decline in morphological studies is worrying for several reasons. First, our knowledge of the anatomy, distribution and biology of nearly all species rests entirely on alphalevel morphological studies. Knowledge of biodiversity patterns and related conservation decisions also rest almost entirely on such studies. Currently, there is adequate global information on only two groups, vascular plants and higher vertebrates4. Most new
346
species of invertebrates, which make up 95% of life4, languish undescribed in museum cabinets owing to a lack of taxonomists, and the problem is set to worsen1,2,5. Second, despite the wealth of data contained in molecular sequences, morphological traits are often vital for correctly inferring evolutionary relationships. The phylogenetic signal embedded in a few morphological characters is often as good as the signal found in huge numbers of nucleotides6 and is much cheaper to obtain. Morphological systematics helps underpin our understanding of evolutionary history and, thus, all of comparative biology. The work of traditional taxonomists forms much of the basis for conservation and evolutionary biology, but they are disappearing just when they are needed most. Furthermore, taxonomists, unlike many other workers, are difficult to replace. The techniques of molecular biology are generic: the protocols for sequencing a particular gene in one organism can often be applied, with only minor variations, to different genes and species. Therefore, someone sequencing nuclear genes in mammals can readily switch to working on mitochondrial DNA in beetles. Indeed, some research groups now do not even perform routine sequencing, but either pay commercial labs to process their tissues or ‘data mine’ by downloading sequences from GenBank. Thus, the gathering of molecular data is a widely applicable, but routine, skill; there are numerous courses that teach such skills and many people that possess them. Molecular biologists are thus highly flexible and capable of working on many diverse groups and problems but, as a result, are quite interchangeable. If someone ceases doing molecular phylogenetics on a particular group, one can readily find someone else to continue sequencing. By contrast, morphological taxonomists are unique specialists. There are few courses that explicitly teach how to collect and interpret morphological data. Rather, informative characters and their homologies can only accurately be discerned and interpreted by acquiring detailed first-hand knowledge of a particular group, through direct examination of specimens under the guidance of an expert. Once acquired, such knowledge is not readily transferable to different organisms – someone working on mammal skulls cannot easily switch to beetle genitalia. If a taxonomist ceases work on a group, a lifetime’s accumulated knowledge is lost. It can be impossible to find someone else with the expertise to continue the work – especially for diverse, poorly known taxa (which comprise most of life)1. This makes morphological systematists as
0169-5347/00/$ – see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
unique and worthy of preservation as their study organisms. Ironically, the narrow specialist skills of such workers, which makes them so irreplaceable, also discourages new recruits. Young scientists are deserting taxonomy1,5 in favour of disciplines with better job prospects, such as molecular biology, where their skills are generic and flexible, and where more funding is available. The erosion of traditional taxonomy must be reversed and a few programmes are belatedly attempting to do just this1,5. Funding agencies must realize that short-term research grants discriminate against scientists with specialist training. People with narrow, nontransferable skills, such as morphological systematists, cannot move readily between different short-term positions. Furthermore, the training period of a taxonomist lasts far longer than a typical three-year project grant. Scientists with generic and transferable skills, such as most molecular biologists, can shift between fixed-term jobs more readily. More basic research funding must be directed to support long-term positions in museums and universities, because only these can provide the career stability necessary to produce good taxonomists. Morphological systematists themselves need to recognize, and promote, their importance and irreplaceability. Their work underpins all areas of biology from conservation biology to phylogenetics and evolution. Furthermore, molecular data can readily be obtained for any group with a little time and cash, but good morphological data cannot be bought so easily. As a leading biologist recently lamented to me, ‘when I go, who’s going to keep working on my beetles?’
Michael S.Y. Lee Dept of Zoology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia ([email protected]) References 1 Schram, F.R. and Los, W. (1996) Training systematists for the 21st century. In Systematics Agenda 2000: The Challenge for Europe (Blackmore, S. and Cutler, D., eds), pp. 89–101, The Linnaen Society 2 Steghaus-Kovac, S. (2000) Researchers cash in on personalised species names. Science 287, 421 3 Valdecasas, A.G. et al. (2000) Reliance on the citation index undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature 403, 698 4 Myers, N. et al. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 5 Possingham, H. (2000) The Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI) and the taxonomic impediment: what are they and why should I care? Biologue (Australian Biological Resources Study) 21, 20–21 6 Baker, R.H. and deSalle, R. (1998) Assessing the relative contribution of molecular and morphological characters in simultaneous analysis trees. Mol. Phylog. Evol. 9, 427–436
PII:S0169–5347(00)01907–8
TREE vol. 15, no. 8 August 2000
A worrying systematic decline
M
ost of the earth’s species remain undescribed and are going extinct at an alarming rate. Our understanding of these species will be based largely on morphological studies, because resource-intensive molecular evaluations will only be directed at a few charismatic (often vertebrate) forms. However, the scientists most needed during this biodiversity bottleneck – ‘traditional’ taxonomists – are themselves disappearing. This loss of biological expertise will be irreplaceable. Although systematic research has increased, the boom has been largely molecular. The number of morphological taxonomists is dwindling1, and at a recent systematics meeting (Systematics Association Second Biennial Conference, University of Glasgow, UK, 1999), many taxonomists were surprised that nearly all talks on plants, and most on microbes and animals, were exclusively molecular. Molecular phylogenetics is receiving an increasing proportion of research funds and the plight of traditional taxonomists has been highlighted by the recent ‘cash for new species’ debate, where benefactors provide research funds in return for rights to name newly described species2. These demographic and funding trends are reflected in research output over the past 20 years. The total number of papers published per year in the two general systematics journals Systematic Biology and Cladistics has risen steadily, and the number of molecular studies has exploded; however, the number of studies analysing morphology has fallen. There has also been a boom in new journals publishing molecular, but not morphological, systematic studies (Molecular Biology and Evolution, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Molecular Ecology and Molecular Entomology). Conversely, there have been far fewer new journals devoted to morphological taxonomy and some (e.g. Philosophical Transactions B) have ceased publishing empirical taxonomic monographs. Methods for evaluating research output, such as counting the number or measuring the short-term citation impact of publications, further discourage detailed taxonomic treatises, which are not widely cited immediately after publication but often become long-lived classics3. This decline in morphological studies is worrying for several reasons. First, our knowledge of the anatomy, distribution and biology of nearly all species rests entirely on alphalevel morphological studies. Knowledge of biodiversity patterns and related conservation decisions also rest almost entirely on such studies. Currently, there is adequate global information on only two groups, vascular plants and higher vertebrates4. Most new
346
species of invertebrates, which make up 95% of life4, languish undescribed in museum cabinets owing to a lack of taxonomists, and the problem is set to worsen1,2,5. Second, despite the wealth of data contained in molecular sequences, morphological traits are often vital for correctly inferring evolutionary relationships. The phylogenetic signal embedded in a few morphological characters is often as good as the signal found in huge numbers of nucleotides6 and is much cheaper to obtain. Morphological systematics helps underpin our understanding of evolutionary history and, thus, all of comparative biology. The work of traditional taxonomists forms much of the basis for conservation and evolutionary biology, but they are disappearing just when they are needed most. Furthermore, taxonomists, unlike many other workers, are difficult to replace. The techniques of molecular biology are generic: the protocols for sequencing a particular gene in one organism can often be applied, with only minor variations, to different genes and species. Therefore, someone sequencing nuclear genes in mammals can readily switch to working on mitochondrial DNA in beetles. Indeed, some research groups now do not even perform routine sequencing, but either pay commercial labs to process their tissues or ‘data mine’ by downloading sequences from GenBank. Thus, the gathering of molecular data is a widely applicable, but routine, skill; there are numerous courses that teach such skills and many people that possess them. Molecular biologists are thus highly flexible and capable of working on many diverse groups and problems but, as a result, are quite interchangeable. If someone ceases doing molecular phylogenetics on a particular group, one can readily find someone else to continue sequencing. By contrast, morphological taxonomists are unique specialists. There are few courses that explicitly teach how to collect and interpret morphological data. Rather, informative characters and their homologies can only accurately be discerned and interpreted by acquiring detailed first-hand knowledge of a particular group, through direct examination of specimens under the guidance of an expert. Once acquired, such knowledge is not readily transferable to different organisms – someone working on mammal skulls cannot easily switch to beetle genitalia. If a taxonomist ceases work on a group, a lifetime’s accumulated knowledge is lost. It can be impossible to find someone else with the expertise to continue the work – especially for diverse, poorly known taxa (which comprise most of life)1. This makes morphological systematists as
0169-5347/00/$ – see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
unique and worthy of preservation as their study organisms. Ironically, the narrow specialist skills of such workers, which makes them so irreplaceable, also discourages new recruits. Young scientists are deserting taxonomy1,5 in favour of disciplines with better job prospects, such as molecular biology, where their skills are generic and flexible, and where more funding is available. The erosion of traditional taxonomy must be reversed and a few programmes are belatedly attempting to do just this1,5. Funding agencies must realize that short-term research grants discriminate against scientists with specialist training. People with narrow, nontransferable skills, such as morphological systematists, cannot move readily between different short-term positions. Furthermore, the training period of a taxonomist lasts far longer than a typical three-year project grant. Scientists with generic and transferable skills, such as most molecular biologists, can shift between fixed-term jobs more readily. More basic research funding must be directed to support long-term positions in museums and universities, because only these can provide the career stability necessary to produce good taxonomists. Morphological systematists themselves need to recognize, and promote, their importance and irreplaceability. Their work underpins all areas of biology from conservation biology to phylogenetics and evolution. Furthermore, molecular data can readily be obtained for any group with a little time and cash, but good morphological data cannot be bought so easily. As a leading biologist recently lamented to me, ‘when I go, who’s going to keep working on my beetles?’
Michael S.Y. Lee Dept of Zoology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia ([email protected]) References 1 Schram, F.R. and Los, W. (1996) Training systematists for the 21st century. In Systematics Agenda 2000: The Challenge for Europe (Blackmore, S. and Cutler, D., eds), pp. 89–101, The Linnaen Society 2 Steghaus-Kovac, S. (2000) Researchers cash in on personalised species names. Science 287, 421 3 Valdecasas, A.G. et al. (2000) Reliance on the citation index undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature 403, 698 4 Myers, N. et al. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 5 Possingham, H. (2000) The Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI) and the taxonomic impediment: what are they and why should I care? Biologue (Australian Biological Resources Study) 21, 20–21 6 Baker, R.H. and deSalle, R. (1998) Assessing the relative contribution of molecular and morphological characters in simultaneous analysis trees. Mol. Phylog. Evol. 9, 427–436
PII:S0169–5347(00)01907–8
TREE vol. 15, no. 8 August 2000