Algal Taxonomy: a Road to Nowhere?1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
J. Phycol. *, ***–*** (2012) © 2012 Phycological Society of America DOI: 10.1111/jpy.12020 M INIREVIEW ALGAL TAXONOMY: A ROAD TO NOWHERE?1 Olivier De Clerck2 Phycology Research Group, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281-S8, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Michael D. Guiry AlgaeBase and Irish Seaweed Research Group, Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, University Road, Galway, Ireland Frederik Leliaert Phycology Research Group, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281-S8, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Yves Samyn Belgian National Focal Point to the Global Taxonomy Initiative, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium and Heroen Verbruggen School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia The widespread view of taxonomy as an essentially species discovery and formal description, or an retrogressive and outmoded science unable to cope incipient alternative or parallel taxonomy, will be with the current biodiversity crisis stimulated us to largely determined by how well we manage to integrate analyze the current status of cataloguing global algal historical collections into modern taxonomic research. diversity. Contrary to this largely pessimistic belief, Additionally, there is a pressing need for a consensus species description rates of algae through time and about the organizational framework to manage the trends in the number of active taxonomists, as revealed information about algal species names. An eventual by the web resource AlgaeBase, show a much more strategy should preferably come out of an international positive picture. More species than ever before are working group that includes the various databases being described by a large community of algal as well as the various phycological societies. In this taxonomists. The lack of any decline in the rate at strategy, phycologists should link up to major which new species and genera are described, however, international initiatives that are currently being is indicative of the large proportion of undiscovered developed, such as the compulsory registration of diversity and bears heavily on any prediction of global taxonomic and nomenclatural acts and the algal species diversity and the time needed to catalogue introduction of Life Science Identifiers. it. The saturation of accumulation curves of higher Key index words: algae; AlgaeBase; barcoding; dark taxa (family, order, and classes) on the other hand species; DNA taxonomy; species discovery; taxon- suggest that at these taxonomic levels most diversity omy has been discovered. This reasonably positive picture does not imply that algal taxonomy does not face serious challenges in the near future. The observed levels of cryptic diversity in algae, combined with the shift in methods used to characterize them, have … if our rates of discovery continue at the present resulted in a rampant uncertainty about the status of pace, we should have a definitive total for insects in many older species. As a consequence, there is a a little over fifteen thousand years. The rest … may tendency in phycology to move gradually away from take a little longer – B. Bryson (2003). traditional names to a more informal system whereby – clade-, specimen- or strain-based identifiers are used to Long before Carl von Linne (1707 1778), the communicate biological information. Whether these instigator and popularizer of modern nomenclature informal names for species-level clades represent a and taxonomy, mankind showed a propensity to temporary situation stimulated by the lag between document, describe, and catalogue all the living things on our planet (Godfray and Knapp 2004). 1Received 1 September 2012. Accepted 15 October 2012. The practice of giving names to organisms, probably 2Author for correspondence: e-mail [email protected]. born out of necessity among hunter-gatherer socie- 1 2 OLIVIERDECLERCKETAL. ties and later a privileged pastime of the rich, has ians, birds, and mammals), representing well stud- transformed itself over the years into a modern sci- ied and taxonomist-rich groups (Bacher 2012, ence embracing the principles of evolutionary biol- Samyn and De Clerck 2012). Applying a much ogy as well as revolutionary innovations on multiple broader taxon sampling, Costello et al. (2012) con- technological fronts (Goldstein and DeSalle 2011). firmed the existence of a greater taxonomic effort The importance of describing and naming species as reported by Joppa et al. (2011); however, the rate (alpha taxonomy) transcends the mere cataloguing of species description was shown to be virtually of diversity. Clearly, it is an enabling discipline, linear from the mid-19th century onward with no delivering basic and indispensable knowledge for evidence of decrease or, indeed, increase. many fields of human interest and underpinning a In this context, the questions of how we are doing host of scientific research, including biodiversity as algal taxonomists and what the status of descrip- conservation, understanding of ecosystem services, tive algal taxonomy is, are relevant to ask. Does a documenting climate change, and ecological model- daunting task await phycologists with the prospect ing. As a central tenet, and virtually unchallenged of several hundreds or even thousands of years of for over 250 years, taxonomy makes use of a rank- alpha taxonomy at the present pace or could the INIREVIEW based classification system whereby Linnaean bino- remaining algal diversity perhaps be described at M mials serve as anchors for biological information the current rate within the next century? Answering about a species, including its taxonomic affinities, this question requires accurate estimates of the total morphology, distribution, and ecological role. number of algal species, the number of species The task of discovering and documenting biodi- already described and the rate at which species are versity has been given an increased sense of currently being described. Until recently, a lack of urgency now that anthropogenic impacts are dra- primary data on algal species descriptions, the num- matically altering the biota of the Earth (Cardinale ber of currently accepted names and synonyms lar- et al. 2012), with current extinction rates now as gely prevented any quantitative analysis of algal high as 27,000 of the known species per annum diversity and trends in descriptive taxonomy. Today, (Wilson 1992, Maddison et al. 2012). However, the information on algal diversity and taxonomy is avail- general perception persists that taxonomy is a sci- able in a number of online databases, each with ence in crisis, and a discipline that suffers from a their own focus and limitations. The Index Nominum lack of prestige and resources (Wheeler 2004, Bo- Algarum (INA; Silva and Moe 1999) is a nomencla- ero 2010). The magnitude of biological diversity tor, a high-quality compendium of all algal names, seems so overwhelming and the discovery and their original places of publication, and type informa- description of new species proceeds at such a slow tion; but INA generally offers no information on pace (6,000–18,000 species of eukaryotes per year; accepted names and taxonomic synonyms. AlgaTerra Mora et al. 2011) that millennia of basic descrip- (Jahn and Kusber 2012) and the on-line Catalogue of tive taxonomy seem to await us before alpha taxon- Diatom Names at the California Academy of Sciences omy reaches its goal. The inadequate pace of (Fourtanier and Kociolek 2012) integrate nomencla- taxonomy has resulted in several proposals (and tural information on terrestrial and freshwater microal- the inevitably accompanying contentious debates) gae, and diatoms, respectively, but are limited in aimed at making the process of describing species their taxonomic information. AlgaeBase (Guiry and more efficient (e.g., Tautz et al. 2003, Godfray Guiry 2012) databases taxonomic, nomenclatural, et al. 2007, Wheeler 2008, Clark et al. 2009, Smith bibliographic, and biogeographical information on et al. 2009, Patterson et al. 2010, Deans et al. 2012, micro-algae and macroalgae from marine as well as Maddison et al. 2012). freshwater and terrestrial environments on a worldwide Contrary to the widespread pessimistic view of tax- basis. Even though AlgaeBase is a work in progress onomy as an essentially retrogressive and outmoded (Guiry 2012), it does not have the taxonomic limita- science unable to cope with the current biodiversity tions of the other algal databases. We have therefore crisis (Goldstein and DeSalle 2011), a much more used AlgaeBase as a primary source of data to generate optimistic view was presented by Joppa et al. (2011). a set of metrics enabling us to evaluate the current state These authors analyzed rates of species descriptions of algal taxonomy. for a number of animal and plant taxa and con- Here, we analyze the rates of species description cluded that, contrary to the generally accepted view, through time as well as trends in the number of both the rates of species description and the num- algal taxonomists and evaluate the progress of algal ber of taxonomists have increased exponentially taxonomy in the light of recent estimates of global since the 1950s. Interestingly, they also noted a algal diversity (Appendix S1, see Supporting Infor- marked decline in the number of species described mation for technical details). In addition, we discuss per taxonomist, something that they attribute to the general trends in species discovery, contrast these increasing difficulty of finding new species in an with species