Cladistics

Cladistics 27 (2011) 1–8

10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00348.x

Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy:

accessibility and impact evaluation
Malte C. Ebacha,*, Antonio G. Valdecasasb and Quentin D. Wheelerc
a
Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052 NSW,
Australia; bMuseo Nacional Ciencias Naturales, c ⁄ José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain; cCollege of Liberal Arts and Sciences, International
Institute for Species Exploration, Arizona State University, PO Box 876505, Tempe, AZ, USA
Accepted 22 December 2010

Abstract

There has been much discussion of the ‘‘taxonomic impediment’’. This phrase confuses two kinds of impediment: an impediment
to end users imposed by lack of reliable information; and impediments to taxonomy itself, which vary from insufficient funding to
low citation rates of taxonomic monographs. In order to resolve both these types of impediment, taxonomy needs to be revitalized
through funding and training taxonomists, as well as investing in taxonomic revisions and monographs rather than technological
surrogates such as DNA barcoding.
 The Willi Hennig Society 2011.

Taxonomy—the scientific discipline that explores,
discovers, interprets, represents, names, and organizes
organic beings—is an integral component of biogeogra-
phy, evolutionary biology, ecology, conservation, and
other biodiversity studies. Among other outputs, it
provides a stable classification and nomenclatural sys-
tem, without which communication would be impossi-
ble. Even in applied fields such as agriculture,
aquaculture, fisheries, and border protection, taxonomy
plays a significant role in plague identification, distin-
guishing disease vectors from close non-vector relatives,
and detecting invasive or alien species, to mention just a
few. We inhabit a biologically diverse world. Taxonomy,
besides being a discipline of enquiry and having its own
research programme, is therefore highly significant to
society at many levels. Due to the biodiversity crisis
(Wilson, 1992), we need to recognize that there is an
urgent need for reliable taxonomy.
Taxonomy is losing expertise, as fewer people are
trained as taxonomists and many posts calling for
qualified taxonomists are closing. An increasing reliance
*Corresponding author:
E-mail address: mcebach@gmail.com
on technology as a substitute for taxonomy, coupled
with pressures from consumer demand, has placed
taxonomy in a predicament. There is a new emphasis
on building databases that provide a valuable service to
consumers. Consumers are typically not taxonomists,
but end users of taxonomy—such as ecologists, conser-
vationists, or customs officers. Dwindling funds to carry
out taxonomy and dwindling numbers of taxonomists
have led to an information shortage that has been
incorrectly termed the ‘‘taxonomic impediment’’. The
impediment is in fact twofold. At one level, the
impediment represents a lack of speed and accuracy in
making taxonomic knowledge available. At another
level, it points to a need for funding and further research
in taxonomy itself; reliable taxonomic information is
simply not being generated or tested in proportion
to need. We term these impediments to users and
impediments to taxonomy, respectively. The former
impediment is measured by the amount of available
taxonomic data and information; the latter is indicated
by the number of active taxonomists and rates of
generation of data and information.
Agnarsson and Kuntner (2007, p. 531) recently
published some reflections on taxonomy that we believe

 The Willi Hennig Society 2011

2 M.C. Ebach et al. / Cladistics 27 (2011) 1–8

deserve commentary. They state that ‘‘… one funda-
mental quest of biology is learning what organisms
inhabit the earth’’. Given current calls for faster
identification techniques in order to assess the biodiver-
sity crisis, this statement has been addressed by two
radically different proposed solutions, each with propo-
nents in the current literature.
1. Adopt so-called DNA barcodes that rapidly
identify taxa in order to estimate the number of extant
species as well as providing ecologists, conservation
biologists, and others with a means to assess biodiversity
that requires no special knowledge of the taxa.
2. Educate and employ more taxonomists to carry out
species descriptions and revise classifications in order to
understand biodiversity better, and use technology to
open up access to all the resources that taxonomists
require to do ‘‘good’’ taxonomy.
These two proposals implicitly point to different
issues. The first refers to techniques and features of the
phenotype that can be utilized efficiently in one of the
applied tasks of taxonomy—species identification
(descriptive keys, DNA barcoding); the second empha-
sizes aspects of taxonomy as a discipline with its own
research programme—species discovery (diagnosis,
description, classification, nomenclature). It is our
feeling that only a minority of biologists consider
species discovery to be a fundamental question. More-
over, it is likely that the majority of biologists (mostly
end users) would suppose that biology, including bio-
diversity studies, requires only minimal input from
traditional taxonomy. We believe that this attitude is a
major reason why taxonomy is in crisis. A recent survey
of the population of the southwestern United States
suggests that most people on the street appreciate that
the work of species exploration is not done and endorse
the idea of support for taxonomy (Table 1).
Taken with all its limitations and shortcomings, this
poll is indicative of the importance attributed to species
discovery (question 3), and to taxonomy once it has
been defined (question 2). While both questions are
somewhat similar, the common practice when carrying
out polls to ask redundant or similar questions in
different ways reinforces the robustness of the responses.
While it is true that, overall, the general public think
little of taxonomy (or of biology for that matter), the
attitude that taxonomy is neither relevant nor deserving
of support lies more within the scientific (biological)
community. On the other hand, both forums perceive
species identification—as distinct from discovery—to be
vital for biodiversity studies. Although species are
disappearing at a higher rate than we are discovering
them, this distinction between species identification and
discovery has led many scientists and politicians hesitate
in supporting funding for taxonomy, despite the strong
evidence of its importance.
The social impediment: impact evaluation
It is interesting to note that the rate of taxonomic
publication has been fairly uniform in the past 25 years,
increasing slightly in the past few years (Fig. 1). This
implies a similar rate of species discovery, but at a rate
insufficient to describe many species before they become
extinct. If we aspire to know as much as we can about
life on Earth, then taxonomic work must be accelerated,

Table 1
Results of the Arizona State University (ASU) Southwest poll

Question Answer Response rate (%)

Thinking about all the forms of life on Earth, what percentage < 25% 11
of the EarthÕs species do you think are known to science? 25–50% 22
Would you say … 50–75% 33
75–100% 20
50% 5
100% ⁄ all of them (volunteered response) 1
DonÕt know (volunteered response) 8
Taxonomy is the science of species discovery, description, and Very important 34
classification. What is your perception of taxonomy as a Somewhat important 50
science? Would you say it is … Not too important 7
Not important at all 4
DonÕt know (volunteered answer) 5
Some people say that there is a biodiversity crisis, and that Very important 49
many species face potential extinction. How important to you Somewhat important 38
is it that scientists explore and document our planetÕs species? Not too important 7
Not important at all 4
DonÕt know (volunteered answer) 2

The poll was conducted by telephone from 6 November to 19 December 2007 by ASUÕs Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR), by request
of the International Institute for Species Exploration, ASU. The poll included a random sample of 1013 adult residents of the southwestern USA,
including Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. Margin of sampling error, ± 3 percentage points. Source: ISSR (ASU), 2007.
 M.C. Ebach et al. / Cladistics 27 (2011) 1–8
Fig. 1. Number of publications reporting new species since 1980, as recorded in the online Zoological Records database.
more taxonomists must be trained, and a new genera-
tion of efficient tools must be made available to them
(Wheeler, 2008).
Agnarsson and Kuntner (2007) go on to state that
species discovery and description are restricted to
journals of low impact by convention, not by fact.
We suggest that the opposite is true, and demonstrate
this below. The impact of research depends on the
generality and connectivity of hypotheses to other
research. Methodological papers that can be applied to
different research subjects receive more citations than
those with narrow applications. Conceptual relatedness
refers to the breadth that the subject of research has
within a field. In taxonomy, generality and relatedness
are, by necessity, low. Results valid for a certain group
or taxon may be not relevant for any other group.
Besides this, a single taxonomist can be expert, at
most, for a relatively small group of between 5000 and
10 000 species. This maximum number tends to neces-
sitate what may be called taxonomic cliques, that is,
small worldwide groups of taxonomists sharing exper-
tise of a family, suborder, or class of organisms. This is
the immediate (but not necessarily the distant) audi-
ence for publications of species discovery and the
source of citations: a small set of specialists working on
related species. For many taxonomic groups, this will
remain so for a long time into the future. Many groups
with a substantial number of species described will
continue to be read and cited primarily within these
small cliques, due to the complexity of their morphol-
ogy, difficulty of their study, or relative obscurity of
the animals or plants themselves. Taxonomy is, by this
measure, a low-impact activity, but it is not alone in
this. Much technological research is not measured by
citations, for example, the results of industrial research
are often patented or hidden behind copyright, and the
algorithms populating all kinds of software may not be
3
published. Impact is not a good measure for the
quality of technological contributions, a point made by
De Solla Price (1969):
The difference between science and technology in this new sense
is pointed to most clearly by the sociology of publication. The
scientist, it was remarked, is heavily motivated to publish—this
is the key to all the inner springs of his drive to do science. In
technology it is otherwise; the tradition, crudely speaking, is to
conceal in order to have a new product or process before others
(De Solla Price, 1969, pp. 95–96).
If we recognize that citation impact is likewise not an
appropriate measure for taxonomic quality, then other
measures should be use to evaluate the quality of
taxonomic work.
The problem stated by Agnarsson and Kuntner (2007)
is that it is not necessary to cite original taxonomic
descriptions when referring to taxa for purposes other
than taxonomic work. They use Drosophila melanogas-
ter Meigen, 1830 as an example of a term with a very
high citation level, but with no attribution to the
describer Meigen (1830). Agnarsson and Kuntner
(2007) are aware that D. melanogaster is a peculiar case
as it is a universal laboratory tool for genetics and has
the property of generality cited above: it can be used as a
model for many different kinds of hypothesis. Although
there are no published figures on citation frequency for
taxa, it is not difficult to estimate that thousands of
species have been cited only once or twice. Invertebrate
groups such as the acari (mites and ticks) or nematodes
are unlikely to be highly cited due to their size, rarity,
and problematic morphology. To make matters worse, it
is a common practice, among ornithologists in partic-
ular, to use a scientific name without providing reference
to the author or an appropriate citation in the refer-
ences. A similar practice exists in botany, where an
abbreviated version of the author name is used,
although here the author is usually cited fully in the
4 M.C. Ebach et al. / Cladistics 27 (2011) 1–8

references. This practice can also undermine the number described no fewer than 1566 taxa compared to
of citations ‘‘owed’’ to a particular author, as in the HerreraÕs none, is not reflected in the number of
Drosophila example above. citations. Much of CookÕs Herculean work, devoted to
Valdecasas et al. (2000) argued that the Science the water mite fauna of whole regions such as South
Citation Index (SCI) could have a detrimental effect America or India, has been published in monographs
on taxonomic studies, as science policy makers and and thus remains unaccounted for by the ISI. Similar
bureaucrats routinely base their evaluation of particular examples can be found for many other taxa, again
scientist on citations. Taxonomists will generally have a highlighting the inadequacy of the SCI in measuring
low SCI because they tend to publish in either smaller taxonomic output and achievement.
museum journals (e.g. Records of the Western Australian
Museum) or in general biological journals (e.g. Zoolog-
ical Journal of the Linnaean Society). The core journals The end user and taxonomic impediments: accessibility
that feature highly in citation indices accept taxonomic
papers only under exceptional circumstances (e.g. The taxonomic impediments outlined by Godfray
Nature, Systematic Biology, Cladistics, TREE). Given (2002, 2007) merely note impediments encountered by
the restriction over where one can publish a taxonomic end users of taxonomy (conservationists, field ecologists,
paper, the SCI does not help in assessing how good a etc.). This focus on the impediments to users threatens
journal, taxonomic paper or taxonomist may be, as such the future of taxonomy, which is dependent on funding
indices do not signify the level of taxonomic or that is influenced by end users (such as biodiversity
nomenclatural quality. Taxonomic journals, as Krell grants).
(2000) points out, ‘‘… can only be classified as of high or As is increasingly the trend in many other fields in
low quality, which does not affect the number science, it is the end users who are being allowed to
of citations’’ (Krell, 2000, p. 507–508). A summary of determine the importance and significance of a field by
taxonomic quality and output versus the number of generating a demand that is attracting funds. The end
citations over a 50-year period is given in Table 2. The users who are currently demanding instant identifica-
group is made up of taxonomists specializing in water tions and accurate descriptions are ecologists and
mites (Hydrachnidia, Acari, Arthropoda). The number conservationists, both riding the current wave of biodi-
of papers and citation rating are given for each versity funding (EoL, SYNTHESYS, European Distrib-
taxonomist. These are compared with the number of uted Institute for Taxonomy (EDIT), etc.). Any field
publications and citations of a specialist, C. M. Herrera, that is unable to provide services (e.g. instant identifi-
outside taxonomy but within the natural history disci- cation) promptly to end users is considered a failure in
plines. Herrera, a highly cited scientist in the Institute the areas of cost effectiveness and time management.
for Scientific Information (ISI) list, has published 89 The practical aspects of user impediments can be
works with at least that number of hypotheses. Herrera resolved by increasing the accessibility of taxonomic
(3908) has a citation rating 135 times greater than Cook information. This not only improves the performance of
(29). The importance of the work of Cook, who taxonomy, but also increases its visibility. The EDIT
project, for instance, aims to improve the accessibility of
taxonomy for both taxonomists and end users. Unfor-
Table 2 tunately, there are those who incorrectly interpret the
A selection of water mite taxonomists, with number of species taxonomic impediment to mean ‘‘bad taxonomy’’ and
described, number of citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI), seek to change the taxonomic process itself. ‘‘Unitary
and time span of publication; the number of publications of a very well
taxonomy’’ (Godfray, 2002, 2007), the International
known ecologist is also included, along with the time span of his
publications Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode), and
other attempts at revising the way taxonomy is done are
Number Total number misguided and miss the point entirely. This perception
of taxa of SCI
Taxonomist Time span described* citations
of taxonomy as a descriptive tool that can be used by
anyone, at any time, is what truly impedes taxonomy.
Cook, D. R. 1953–2004 1566 29 Taxonomy is not just a service for end users that is
Smit, H. 1992–2004 152 20
Tuzovskij, P. T. 1974–2004 55 12
useful during the current biodiversity crisis. Taxonomy
Gerecke, R. 1989–2004 55 21 is more than just an identification service. It is errone-
Smith, I. M. 1972–2004 102 81 ous to think that taxonomy can be replaced by
Wiles, P. R. 1988–2004 129 26 taxonomic tools or technological surrogates. Such issues
Ecologist 1976–2004 Papers 3908 are merely applications for taxonomic information. The
(Herrera, C. M.) published = 89
question remains, where will that content come from?
*Species, genus and higher taxa. Who will do the hard work of rigorously scientific
Only papers reporting new taxa. taxonomy?
 M.C. Ebach et al. / Cladistics 27 (2011) 1–8
Real taxonomic impediments
Genuine impediments to taxonomic progress stem
from the current poor understanding of what taxonomy
is and how it fits into biological and geosciences. This
has led to the following problems.
Insufficient funding
Currently there are few sources for funding taxo-
nomic monographs (systematic revisions) or training
taxonomists. Museums that traditionally have employed
and trained taxonomists no longer do so in significant
numbers, if at all. Instead, money for taxonomy is
channelled into projects such as DNA barcoding, and
the construction of DNA banks and molecular labora-
tories. Noteworthy exceptions are primarily at the US
National Science Foundation, where Revisionary Syn-
theses in Systematics (RevSys) and Planetary Biodiver-
sity Inventory (PBI) projects do support descriptive
taxonomy and where Partnerships for Enhancing
Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) has trained young
taxonomists.
Insufficient expertise
The prospect of no funding and poor employment
opportunities means that fewer and fewer students
consider taxonomy as a career prospect. This is in sharp
contrast to the importance of taxonomy, which has
become more relevant and urgent than ever due to the
biodiversity crisis, and to the intellectual challenge of
becoming a taxon expert that rivals any other field of
science.
Insufficient education of experts
A lack of experts has contributed to a decline in the
quality of training that taxonomists receive. Many of
those working on taxonomic groups today do so at the
molecular level, disregarding the morphology, formal
classifications, and nomenclature. The effects of this
erosion of the breadth and depth of training are yet to
be fully felt, but are inevitable.
Lack of understanding how much taxonomy is yet to be
done
Taxonomy is a phenotypic science, largely morpho-
logical. Although many molecular systematists believe
that DNA taxonomy is viable (Tautz et al., 2003), they
tend to disregard the information content of other
components, and especially the taxonomy of whole
organisms. Without an expert knowledge of morphol-
ogy, it is impossible to identify, describe, and commu-
nicate that which is most interesting about species, the
5
component of the phenotype that first interacts with the
environment (either the physical environment or other
organisms). Taxonomy has always been as much about
character analysis as it is about rigorous descriptions,
classifications, and names. Taxonomy ‘‘light’’ (i.e.
molecular taxonomy) misses this point, and diminishes
taxonomy to little more than a service industry for
biologists who need species to be identified and names
by which to refer to them.
Perception among experimentalists that taxonomy is not
science
Not all scientific knowledge in the biological sciences
is gained through experiments. The assumed superiority
of laboratory or natural experiments (e.g. Rose and
Garland, 2009) may be countered by a more realistic
and tempered view (Futuyma and Bennett, 2009).
Taxonomy is the keystone to the biological sciences.
Without knowledge of a taxon, it would be impossible
to do evolutionary biology, biogeography, or ecology.
Taxonomy, like many historical sciences (geology,
ecology, biogeography), is not open to experimental
enquiry, but it is an exact and exacting scientific pursuit.
Lack of appreciation of how taxonomyÕs hypotheses are
tested
Taxonomic hypotheses can be, and are, routinely
critically tested. Taxonomy may imply questions about
the objectivity of categories, taxonomic styles of discov-
ery, modes of visualization and representation, tech-
niques to preserve, restore and studying organisms, and
the like, which belong to a conceptual agenda that was
interrupted when taxonomy was submitted to the
tutelage of population genetics.
The impediment of language
Many species waiting for description are found in
places where English is not the primary language. This
can be a barrier to publication in widely distributed
taxonomic journals. In addition, existing taxonomic
literature has been published in a variety of languages
(German, French, Russian, etc.), and the content can be
difficult to understand for taxonomists not trained in
those languages. Fortunately, there are a growing
number of software translators that facilitate basic
translation, and hopefully more taxonomy-specific soft-
ware containing taxa jargon will be developed in the
future.
The ‘‘Cinderella effect’’
This term (Padial and De la Riva, 2007) refers to
editorsÕ compulsory placement of new taxonomic results
6 M.C. Ebach et al. / Cladistics 27 (2011) 1–8
as electronic supplements in papers that are not
primarily taxonomic. This practice has the effect of
hiding important taxonomic results.
The real impediment is not taxonomy, as many would
have us believe, but end users who fail to recognize the
importance of taxonomy as an independent science of
classification. Those who misinterpret taxonomy as an
elaborate identification tool (Hebert et al., 2003) are
quick to suggest technological solutions that are sold as
part of the taxonomistsÕ toolkit, but in fact aim to
replace the need for taxonomists and classification
altogether (e.g. Felsenstein, 2003).
Taxonomists are unwise to dismiss end usersÕ con-
cerns and requirements. If end users demand a service
from taxonomy, then taxonomists should oblige. How-
ever, taxonomy is a field that requires taxonomists,
which means more funding is necessary to train and
employ them. In much of the world, the majority of
funding for taxonomy is obtained by end users [EDIT,
Consortium for the Barcode of Life (CBoL), Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), etc.], and
most is spent not on taxonomy or taxonomists, but on
tools that aim to speed up the taxonomic process, or
more often to aid identification without the ‘‘hassle’’ of
morphological descriptions (or taxonomists). Advances
in database accessibility enhance the field, but they
should not be seen as any kind of substitute for the
practice of taxonomy itself. Someone still must populate
such databases with data of sufficiently high quality and
dependability to be worth retrieving.
Impediments, administrators and bureaucrats
A more complex set of circumstances involves the
relationship of administrators and bureaucrats with
taxonomic impediments.
Administrators must strike a balance between com-
peting goals, including maximizing research expendi-
ture; maintaining the right diversity of expertise to
achieve institutional goals in teaching, research, and
public outreach; and building a positive reputation for
the institution. Contrary to popular belief, most large
grants end up costing an institution financially when
inflated salaries, operating costs, and infrastructure
costs are fully accounted for. Grants are not prized
solely for the money, but also for the prestige that
follows, and the demonstrated competitiveness of the
programmes receiving them. It would be inconceivable
for a university not to have a strong English or Maths
programme, regardless of its grant profile. In contrast,
biology departments see no problem with granting
degrees to candidates wholly ignorant of the taxo-
nomic foundations of biology. Universities routinely
hire scientists who do not attract large grants, yet are
perceived to strengthen the institutionÕs reputation,
such as many of those in astronomy, cosmology, and
theoretical physics. To the administrator who does not
understand taxonomy, the field may appear to be a
toxic combination of small and few grants, low
prestige among the biological sciences, perceived as
unnecessary for a balanced education, and carrying a
high overhead when the costs of collections are
included. Until the fundamental importance of taxon-
omy is recognized in biodiversity exploration and
conservation, and in teaching in the life sciences, the
failure of most administrators to support the discipline
can be understood. The faculty in biology depart-
ments, on the other hand, have abdicated their
responsibility to maintain balanced teaching and
research programmes and to educate administrators
about the necessity of the field.
Resolving the end-user impediment
There are ways to overcome the end-user impediment
and to pave the way for open electronic access to
taxonomic resources, as follows:
1. Increase the accessibility of resources needed by
taxonomists to do high quality work (e.g. electronic
libraries, hardware, etc.). This also helps taxonomists to
deliver the product quickly and efficiently through data
stored electronically. The Biodiversity Heritage Library
(Valdecasas, 2010) is a good example of how accessibil-
ity can move taxonomy ahead, although it still has to
solve the problem of copyright for recent publications,
articles, and monographs.
2. Ensure open access to electronic tools and services
for taxonomists to increase their efficiency. This will
overcome traditional bottlenecks, such as specimen
loans and library loans. There is a whole range of tools
available, and on the way, under the heading of
cybertaxonomy (Ebach and Wheeler, 2009).
3. Ensure the availability of electronic translation
tools for users of taxonomic information. Fortunately,
taxonomic descriptions, although jargon-charged, are
usually stereotyped and therefore capable of proper
translation by automatic software. First, however, such
terms need to be added to translation software.
Addressing the taxonomic impediment
As yet, the taxonomic impediment is not being fully
addressed. Projects that help fund solutions to the end-
user impediment do not seek to employ taxonomists in
order to revise groups wholesale, but are using such
revisions in order to test tools (such as EDIT). Projects
such as GBIF, which look beyond taxonomy and cater
for ecologists or users of taxonomic data, focus on basic
nomenclatural revisions rather than complete
 M.C. Ebach et al. / Cladistics 27 (2011) 1–8
taxonomic revisions. This is short-sighted, as the best
and most reliable names emerge from such inclusive
comparative works. Although some taxonomy is
required to revise nomenclatural problems such as
synonymies, a great majority of taxonomic expertise
lies in knowing the morphology in order to revise the
taxonomic groups comprehensively. Without such
knowledge, taxonomy will ultimately fail. If taxonomy
fails, no number of barcoding tools or databases will
meet the needs of user communities.
How not to resolve an impediment: an example from
palaeontology
The biodiversity crisis demands practical solutions to
problems, many of which derive from taxonomy. This is
contributing to a frantic search for simple alternatives to
credible taxonomy, such as DNA barcodes, without
considering their limitations. This same process of
funding one science in order to service another occurred
in taxonomy during the oil crisis of the 1970 and 1980s.
Oil and resource exploration requires accurate taxon-
omy and biostratigraphy. The principle follows the
premise that an oilwell associated with a particular
taxon may lead to other oilwells nearby. That need for
accurate taxonomic revisions led to a large funding
boom in palaeontology, to the extent that it supported a
large number of large taxonomic (palaeontology)
grants. In the 1990s, the development of geophysics
and electronic tools meant that a single geophysical
probe could accurately identify and measure the depth
and density of rocks within a given core. As a result, the
job of several palaeontologists revising taxonomic
groups and their stratigraphy was suddenly replaced
by a single electronic tool. The funding of taxonomy in
palaeontology and palaeontology as a whole suddenly
reduced dramatically (see Stone, 1997). By 2001, palae-
ontology had reached a funding crisis of enormous
proportions. Vacant palaeontological positions are still
not being replaced, and even fewer students studying
palaeontology do taxonomy. The result has been a lack
of experts and jobs in large taxonomic groups, such as
trilobites.
Taxonomists in non-palaeontological groups face the
same future if they invest too heavily in projects
designed to assist end users. If taxonomy was nothing
but an identification service to scientists, then the
discipline possibly could, and should, be replaced by
technology. However, this is not the case. The best
taxonomic insights for users come from taxonomy done
well by those specifically trained. Furthermore, taxon-
omy done sufficiently well means taxonomy done using
the theories, methods, and resources unique to the
discipline. Taxonomy should be funded in its own right
as an important field of understanding. Astronomy, a
7
well funded field, receives huge popular interest,
although it, too, produces no ‘‘product’’. If astronomers
are funded (and awarded Nobel prizes) based purely on
an interest in our cosmos, why should this not also apply
to taxonomy, a field that continually discovers incred-
ible forms closer to home? In reality, both taxonomy
and paleontology give us far more than simple identi-
fication services. Both are historical sciences that enable
us to understand the origin and diversification of species
and taxa, and their unique combinations of characters.
This evolutionary history is the backbone of evolution-
ary biology and a necessary counterweight to ecological
sciences.
The survival of taxonomy depends not only on
funding, but also on institutions making the commit-
ment to employ taxonomists. Making taxonomy acces-
sible electronically is still a viable and useful goal that
will help taxonomists immensely and produce something
that end users can implement. Taxonomy has been too
focused on providing a service to other fields, and
relying on funding to do so. Taxonomy needs to be
funded as a science in its own right, despite technolog-
ical distractions, such as DNA barcodes, that only
distract popular attention from the real taxonomic
impediment.
Taxonomy is impeded by misunderstanding and
misrepresentation, particularly regarding its relevance
beyond serving end users, and current funding trends
reflect this. Contributions by taxonomists and the value
of taxonomic works are mismeasured by inadequate
tools such as the SCI. As we move rapidly toward
electronic publishing in biology, we have an opportunity
to measure uses of Linnaean names in journals with or
without formal or full citations (Wheeler and Krell,
2007). Taxonomists are finding themselves distracted
and, as a result, biology students are not being taught
taxonomy, nor are they encouraged to pursue it as a
career option. It is possible for public perceptions of
taxonomy to be altered, and these impediments written
off as a dark age in the science of classification.
Taxonomy needs to be taken seriously in order to shake
off the impediments articulated here. It is deserving of
recognition as a discipline that is vital to furthering
understanding in the life sciences.
Taxonomy is about quality, using the technological
and conceptual tools available at the time, and not
about scoring a number of citations. Taxonomy is the
science of classification that not only enables species
identifications, but provides insight into the highly
complex relationships among living things and their
attributes, and allows predictions and inferences about
the organic world.
Taxonomy uncovers evolutionary patterns: character
analysis via the homology ⁄ analogy contrast is the key
tool for unravelling the hierarchy of life, which we can
infer from the character distribution among taxa.
8 M.C. Ebach et al. / Cladistics 27 (2011) 1–8
Taxonomy is the key to understanding life, and such
knowledge and understanding are our best hedge
against the uncertainties of the biodiversity crisis.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the useful suggestions of Dennis
Stevenson, Melinda L. Tursky, and two anonymous
referees. A.G.V.Õs work was financed by grant
CGL2009-08943 from the Ministerio de Ciencia e
Innovación.
References
Agnarsson, I., Kuntner, M., 2007. Taxonomy in a changing world:
seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Syst. Biol. 56, 531–539.
De Solla Price, D.J., 1969. The structure of publication in science and
technology. In: Gruber, W.H., Marquis, D.G. (Eds.), Factors in the
Transfer of Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 91–104.
Ebach, M.C., Wheeler, Q.D., 2009. Cybertaxonomy. In: Brix, J.H.
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Time. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 252–
260.
Felsenstein, J., 2003. Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, MA.
Futuyma, D.J., Bennett, A.F., 2009. The importance of experimental
studies in evolutionary theory. In: Garland, T. Jr, Rose, M.R.
(Eds.), Experimental Evolution: Concepts, Methods, and Applica-
tions of Selection Experiments. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA, pp. 15–30.
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.
Hebert, P.D.N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S.L., Dewaard, J.R., 2003.
Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. B
270, 313–322.
Krell, F.T., 2000. Impact factors arenÕt relevant to taxonomy. Nature
403, 698.
Meigen, J.W., 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten
europäischen zweiflügeligen Insekten, Vol. 6. Schulz, Hamm.
Padial, J.M., De la Riva, I., 2007. Taxonomy, the Cinderella of science,
hidden by its evolutionary stepsister. Zootaxa 1577, 1–2.
Rose, M.R., Garland, T. Jr, 2009. DarwinÕs other mistake. In:
Garland, T. Jr, Rose, M.R. (Eds.), Experimental Evolution:
Concepts, Methods, and Applications of Selection Experiments.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 3–13.
Stone, R., 1997. Fossil hunters seek ways to bring their field alive.
Science 278, 219.
Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R.H., Vogler, A.P.,
2003. A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 70–74.
Valdecasas, A.G., 2010. Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL): a new
digital portal for biodiversity studies. In: Pérez Mellado, V.,
Ramon, C. (Eds.), Islands and Evolution, Recerca 19. Institut
Menorquı́ dÕEstudis, Menorca, p. 19.
Valdecasas, A.G., Castroviejo, S., Marcus, L.F., 2000. Reliance on the
citation index undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature 403,
698.
Wheeler, Q.D., 2008. Taxonomic shock and awe. In: Wheeler, Q.D.
(Ed.), The New Taxonomy, Systematics Association Special
Volume. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 211–226.
Wheeler, Q.D., Krell, F.T., 2007. Codes must be updated so that
names are known to all. Nature 447, 142.
Wilson, E.O., 1992. The Diversity of Life. Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.