Systematics must embrace comparative biology and evolution, not speed and automation

Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 150-157

  de Carvalho, Marcelo R ^a   Bockmann, Flávio A ^a   Amorim, Dalton S ^a   Brandão, Carlos Roberto F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Comparative biology; Conservation; General reference system; Historical biology; Phylogenetic systematics; Taxonomic impediment; Taxonomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 55849117608     PISSN: 00713260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11692-008-9018-7     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. AMNAT (Org.) (2006). Biodiversity-the megascience in focus. Outcomes and recommendations. Organized by Associação Memoria Naturalis, Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional.
2. Barrett, R. D. H., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2005). Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83(3), 481-491.
3. Blaxter, M. L. (2004). The promise of a DNA taxonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 669-679.
4. Buckup, P., Menezes, N. A. & Ghazzi, M. (Eds.) (2007). Catálogo das Espécies de Peixes de Água Doce do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional.
5. 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.
6. de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., Brandão, 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.
7. Cotterill, F. P. D. (1995). Systematics, biological knowledge and environmental conservation. Biodiversity & Conservation, 4, 183-205.
8. Crisci, J. V. (2006a). One-dimensional systematists: Perils in a time of steady progress. Systematic Botany, 31(1), 215-219.
9. Crisci, J. V. (2006b). Making taxonomy visible. Systematic Botany, 31(2), 439-440.
10. Dalton, R. (2003). Natural history collections in crisis as funding is slashed. Nature, 423, 575.
11. DeSalle, R. (2006). Species discovery versus species identification in DNA barcoding efforts: Response to Rubinoff. Conservation Biology, 20(5), 1545-1547.
12. DeSalle, R., Giribet, G. & Wheeler, W. C. (Eds.) (2002). Molecular systematics and evolution: Theory and practice. Berlin: Birkhäuser.
13. DeSalle, R., Egan, M. G., & Siddall, M. (2005). The unholy trinity: Taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 360, 1905-1916.
14. Ebach, M. C., & Holdrege, C. (2005). DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy. Nature, 434, 697.
15. Ennos, R. A., French, G. C., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (2005). Conserving taxonomic complexity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(4), 164-168.
16. 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.
17. Evenhuis, N. L. (2007). Helping solve the "other" taxonomic impediment: completing the eight steps to total enlightenment and taxonomic Nirvana. Zootaxa, 1407, 3-12.
18. 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.
19. Farris, J. S. (1979). The information content of the phylogenetic system. Systematic Zoology, 28, 483-519.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Flowers, R. W. (2007b). Taxonomy's unexamined impediment. The Systematist, 28, 3-7.
23. 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.
24. Garland T., Bennett, A. F., & Rezende, E. L. (2005). Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 208, 3015-3035.
25. 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.
26. Godfray, H. C. J. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417, 17-19.
27. Godfray, H. C. J. (2007). Linnaeus in the information age. Nature, 446, 259-260.
28. Godfray, H. C. J., & Knapp, S. (2004). Introduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 559-569.
29. Gotelli, N. J. (2004). A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 585-597.
30. Grant, T., Faivovich, J., & Pol, D. (2003). The perils of 'point-and-click' systematics. Cladistics, 19, 276-285.
31. Gropp, R. E. (2003). Are university natural science collections going extinct? BioScience, 5, 550.
32. Gropp, R. E. (2004). Threatened species: University natural science collections in the United States. Systematics & Biodiversity, 1(3), 285-286.
33. Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & de Waard, J. R. (2003). Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 313-321.
34. Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
35. Janzen, D. H. (2004). Now is the time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 731-732.
36. 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.
37. Landrum, L. R. (2001). What has happened to descriptive systematics? What would make it thrive? Systematic Botany, 26(2), 438-442.
38. 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.
39. Löbl, 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.
40. McNeely, J. A. (2002). The role of taxonomy in conserving biodiversity. Journal of Nature Conservation, 10, 145-153.
41. 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.
42. Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005). DNA barcoding: Error rates based on comprehensive sampling. PloS Biology, 3(12), 2229-2238.
43. Miller, S. E. (2007). DNA barcoding and the renaissance of taxonomy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(12), 4775-4776.
44. Naylor, G. J. P., Ryburn, J. A., Fedrigo, O., & López, 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.
45. 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.
46. Nelson, G., & Platnick, N. (1981). Systematics and biogeography, cladistics and vicariance. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
47. Nelson, J. S. (2006). Fishes of the world (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
48. 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.
49. Prendini, L. (2005). Comments on identifying spiders through DNA barcodes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83(3), 498-504.
50. Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., & Brooks, T. (2005). Phylogeny and conservation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
51. Raven, P. H. (2004). Taxonomy: Where are we now? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 729-730.
52. 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.
53. Rieppel, O. C. (1988). Fundamentals of comparative biology. Basel: Birhäuser.
54. Rodman, J. E., & Cody, J. H. (2003). The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF's partnerships for enhancing expertise in taxonomy (PEET) as a model. Systematic Biology, 52(3), 428-435.
55. 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/.
56. Santos, C. M. D., & Amorim, D. S. (2007). Why biogeographical hypotheses need a well supported phylogenetic framework: A conceptual evaluation. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, 47(4), 63-73.
57. Schmidly, D. J. (2005). What it means to be a naturalist and the future of natural history at American universities. Journal of Mammalogy, 86(3), 449-456.
58. Scotland, R., Hughes, C., Bailey, D., & Wortley, A. (2003). The big machine and the much-maligned taxonomist. Systematics & Biodiversity, 1(2), 139-143.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Suarez, A. V., & Tsutsui, N. D. (2004). The value of museum collections for research and society. BioScience, 54(1), 66-74.
63. Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H., & Vogler, A. P. (2002). DNA points the way ahead in taxonomy. Nature, 418, 479.
64. 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.
65. Thiele, K., & Yeates, D. (2002). Tension arises from duality at the heart of taxonomy. Nature, 419, 337.
66. Vane-Wright, R. I. (1996). Systematics and the conservation of biological diversity. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 83, 47-57.
67. Vari, R. P. (1991). Systematics of the neotropical characiform genus Steindachnerina Fowler (Pisces: Ostariophysi). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 507, 1-118.
68. Wheeler, Q. D. (2004). Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 571-583.
69. Wheeler, Q. D. (2005). Losing the plot: DNA barcodes and taxonomy. Cladistics, 21(4), 405-407.
70. Wheeler, Q. D. (2007). Invertebrate systematics or spineless taxonomy? In: Zhang, Z. -Q. & Shear, W. A. (Eds.), Linnaeus tercentenary: Progress in invertebrate taxonomy, Zootaxa, 1668, pp. 11-18.
71. Wheeler, Q. D., & Meier, R. (Eds.) (2000). Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
72. 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.
73. Wheeler, Q. D., Raven, P. H., & Wilson, E. O. (2004). Taxonomy: Impediment or expedient? Science, 303, 285.
74. Will, K. W., & Rubinoff, D. (2004). Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics, 20(1), 47-55.
75. Wilson, E. O. (2003a). The encyclopedia of life. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 77-80.
76. Wilson, E. O. (2003b). Pheidole in the new world: A dominant, hyperdiverse ant genus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.