See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299392853

The importance of taxonomy in ecology

Article · January 2002
CITATIONS
READS 0
2,308
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Ben A. Woodcock UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
148 PUBLICATIONS 4,628 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Defra Hay Spreading Project View project
Wetting up farm ditches View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ben A. Woodcock on 27 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The importance of taxonomy in ecology

B.A.Woodcoc
k

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Banchory, Aberdeenshire, Scotland AB31 5BY
&

Imperial College at Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire UK SL5

7PY.

To convey any information about an organism requires a name. This premise has been

one of the cornerstones of ecology since Linnaeus first described his hierarchical

classification in 1735. From Linnaean’s system of classification the science of taxonomy

has developed. While the definition of what exactly is a species, the basic unit of

taxonomy, is often unclear ecologists will normally work within a definition, such as

potentially interbreeding populations in sexual organisms. From the publication of this

form of classification a major component of the biological sciences represented an

attempt to categorize life’s’ diversity into the units defined by Linnaeus. In many
respects

this was the heyday of taxonomy, as the efforts of so many individuals were
directed

towards the goal of providing a name for every living thing. It was in this period,
particularly the first half of the 19th century, which so many of the great taxonomic

authors such as Haliday, Meigen, or Fallén worked.

It was an attempt to explain the sheer size of these lists of species that Darwin and his

theory of evolution pulled the rug from the feet of taxonomy. The production of lists no

longer represented the real challenge. Rather than simply trying to name as many species

as possible questions were asked such as how species might interact. Rather than being

an end in itself, taxonomy now became a tool in the pursuit of answers in other field of

biology. Taxonomy became the wheels on which the questions that biologists sought to

answer rode.

Unfortunately it would seem that this wheel became punctured and is now somewhat

deflated, taxonomy is now often seen not as a tool, but as a time consuming hindrance.

The question now asked is ‘do you really need a scientific name’? The most convincing

arguments for not going to this inconvenience are demonstrated in assessments

of
diversity in areas of exceptional biological richness i.e. tropical rainforests. In such

habitats attempts to identify every specimen to species, even in a restricted group, can be

impractical due to the sheer level of diversity. The solution developed retained a concept

of what is a species, but opted not to put a universally recognized name to it. This was

the so-called recognizable taxonomic unit or RTU.

In practice the determination of RTU’s uses a suite of morphological characters to

separate individuals from a community into groups that differ from each other, in a way

very similar to those techniques used by taxonomists. RTU’s are ideally suited to the

rapid assessment of biodiversity in a world where time, money and the possibility that

there may be over 29 million unknown species prevents most from even attempting
to

name every individual (Erwin 1982; May 1986). For example it is practically impossible

to do a complete inventory in most of the super diverse habitats, as scientific names

simply don’t exist for many species. It has been estimated that to give every extant
species a scientific name would take several thousand years (Disney 1986; McNeely
et

al. 1990)

The incorporation of a taxonomic framework within which RTU’s are positioned has

proved to be a useful compromise. This involves identifying each individual to some

level classification, such as family, and then using RTU’s to further separate the group.

Such lower levels of identification provide important ecological information while the

use of RTU’s does not hinder the project with species level identifications. Even using

this method the main problem with RTU’s remains as the interpretation of what is
a

‘recognizable’ biological unit is highly dependent on the interpretation of the individual

worker. This could, and probably has, lead to large inaccuracies in diversity estimates

based on RTU’s. This problem is particularly evident when largely taxonomically

ignorant workers, so called parataxonomists, are used to identify RTU’s (Oliver &

Beattie 1992; Vecchione et al. 2000). Oliver & Beattie (1992) showed that even a

minimal level of taxonomic training could dramatically increase the accuracy between

biological species and RTU’s. This clearly demonstrates that an understanding of

taxonomy when using RTU’s. In essence if an RTU is to ever be useful, it is necessary

that critical characters used by taxonomists in the separation of species are
considered,

without this precaution RTU’s may simply comprise superficially similar grouping of

diverse species assemblages.

Other techniques have been used to circumvent the need for species level identifications

when considering diversity. Indicator species, normally taken from a specific family, are

perhaps the most commonly used approach. The assumptions of correlated diversity

between one group and another is unfortunately often poor (Majer 1983; Yen 1987).
Unless multiple groups of indicators are used to compensate for such poor between group

correlations in diversity this technique may be largely useless in many situations.

Correlations between genus (or family) and species richness have also been used, with

some success, to assess the species diversity of a habitat (e.g. Balmford et al. 2000).

Unfortunately, as with all simplification as you save time so you sacrifice

information

placing a scientific cost to these methods.

The geographical distribution of taxonomists both in the past and in the present has

resulted in a high level of taxonomic coverage of species in North America and

Europe

relative to other world regions. In such taxonomically well defined regions the

justifications for the use of RTU’s are few, and identifications to the level of species
is

standard procedure. Identifications to species will allow access to a wealth of ecological

information in the literature or from other sources such as databases like Bugs (Buckland

et al. 1996). This information is invaluable for the interpretation of some statistical

analysis, such as many ordinations techniques. Species level identifications can also be

valuable in determining conservation priorities. Although there are many theories on the

best way to preserve biodiversity, consideration of species evolutionarily uniqueness is an

important component of this. Without identifications to the level of species such

information will not be available when deciding conservation priorities (Vecchione et

al.

2000).

Unfortunately with the best will in the world, identifying individuals to species is
not

always a simple task. Vecchione et al. (2000) reports that in a family of polychaete
worms, misidentifications to species ran as high as 90%. Within every order there are
‘black groups’ that tend to be the reserve of specialist taxonomists such as the Phoridae

(Diptera). This is unfortunately, as such groups, often avoided by biologists, may be

highly diverse and prove to be the extremely ecologically or evolutionarily interesting.

For some groups the taxonomic works may be old and require considerable experience to

use. For example Joy’s 1912 ‘A practical handbook of British beetles’ still represents the

major work for much of the British Coleoptera. Many keys will also require comparisons

of specimens with a reference collection if identifications are to be reliable. Even

printing errors can cause problems if unnoticed e.g. the generic key in Lindroths (1974)

key to the British Carabidae. For these reasons it is vital that if data is to be published

using scientific name that identifications are checked by comparisons to an

accurate

reference collection such as those present in the Natural History Museum or the Oxford

University Museum. In many cases a simple comparison with a reference collection will

be enough to verify identification, but in some groups the assistance of an expert will
be

required to ensure correct determination. Conversations with experienced taxonomists are

also important if an understanding of what groups are hard to identify or what characters

are particularly useful or poor. Attention must always be paid to the taxonomic literature,

to ensure that the integrity of species has been retained, i.e. that they haven’t been split or

sunk as a synonym since publication of the work being used.

Taxonomy is a vital tool for any ecologist however it requires considerable care and

experience before it can be used with any degree of proficiency. This should be

acknowledged and not ignored, simply assuming that you can identify individuals to

species or place them in RTU’s with no, or a limited, understanding of their taxonomy

displays only ignorance. While it is not often easy to do so, every effort should be made

to ensure that identifications to either species or RTU are done in a manner

that
maximizes the resources available to the researches. This should include the latest

literature, museum collections and experts in the field of taxonomy wherever possible.
Bibliography

Balmford, A., Lyon, A.J.E. & Lang, R.M. (2000) Testing the higher-taxon approach
to

conservation planning in a mega-diverse group: the macrofungi. Biological

Concervation, 93, 209-217.

Buckland, P.C., Buckland, P.I., YuanZhuo, D. & Sadler, J. (1996) Bugs:

Database

management system. North Atlantic Biocultural Organisation Project.

Disney, R.H.L. (1986) Inventory surveys of insect faunas; Discussion of a particular

event. Antenna, 10, 89-95.

Erwin, T.L. (1982) Tropical forests; their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod

species. Coleopterists' Bulletin, 36, 74-75.

Lindroth, C.H. (1974)

Carabidae.

Majer, J.D. (1983) Ants: Bioindicators of mine site rehabilitation, land-use and land

conservation. Environmental Management, 7, 375-383.

May, R.M. (1986) How many species are there? Nature, 324, 514-515.

McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R., Ried, W.V., Mittermeier, R.A. & Werner, T.B. (1990)

Conservation of the worlds biological diversity. Gland, Switzerland.

Oliver, I. & Beattie, A.J. (1992) A possible method for the rapid assessment of

biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 7, 562-548.

Vecchione, M., Mickevich, M.F., Fauchald, K., Collette, B.B., Williams, A.B., Munroe,

T.A. & Young, R.E. (2000) Importance of assessing taxonomic adequacy in determining

fishing effects on marine biodiversity. Journal of Marine Science, 57, 677-681.

Yen, A.I. (1987) A preliminary assessment of the correlation between plant, vertebrate

and Coleoptera communities in the Victorian mallee. The role of invertebrates in

 conservation and biological surveys. (ed. J.D.Majer), pp. 73-88. Department of

Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.

View publication stats

View publication stats