Palaeontologia Electronica PALEONTOLOGICAL
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Palaeontologia Electronica http://palaeo-electronica.org PALEONTOLOGICAL SYSTEMATICS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: WE NEED MORE SPECIALISTS AND MORE DATA Carrie E. Schweitzer As an invertebrate paleontological systematist type of database, the Treatise, the Sepkoski curves in the 21st century, I have found that A) I have few or datasets, etc. need to recognize that system- other colleagues, and B) those that I have are gen- atists have given them their dataset. erally at least a decade older than me. Why is this? Systematists working today do not merely Museums and universities worldwide, as we all name taxa. Nearly all of us, in our papers describ- know, are not replacing systematists as they retire; ing new taxa, incorporate new findings about antiq- thus, the perception that there is no job market for uity of lineages, biogeographic patterns, the systematist is probably real, in part. And it is evolutionary radiations, or other non-taxonomic certainly true that mathematical modeling of observations. The suggestion that I have person- nature, statistical evaluation of data, and phyloge- ally heard, that the systematist cannot add to “pale- netic methods are seen by many as the “best” or obiological” studies, is biased, short-sighted, and in “true” means of yielding data about paleontological fact, wrong. It can be argued that in fact, working problems, so that many younger paleontologists with specimens is a much better approximation of work on those subjects. the paleontological world than is mathematical But another important factor is the unfortunate modeling. After all, the specimens are real. In my way systematics, at least in invertebrate paleontol- area of specialty, when fossil decapods are col- ogy, is discussed by others in the profession. I hear lected, we collect all of them that we see because derogatory remarks about it every year, either they are so rare. The collecting bias is probably directly or via our students, at the GSA (yes, even against those that are small or badly eroded, from my fellow professionals). This certainly does although I might add that years of working with 2- not inspire young professionals to enter a career in 10 mm Jurassic crabs have made us quite good at systematic paleontology. finding the small specimens. Thus, we are generat- I argue that the activities and contributions of ing as accurate a picture as human collectors pos- systematic paleontologists have been unfairly dep- sibly can of the decapod diversity in any given recated by our fellow scientists. We are not “stamp collecting locality, given the vagaries of fossiliza- collectors.” We do not name taxa just to see our tion. And the bonus? It’s fun. We work with actual own name in print at the end of a species or specimens, work outdoors in outstanding localities, generic name. We are in the business of cataloging take students to these fabulous places, and teach the biological and paleontological diversity of our them about real specimens with actual, preserved planet, and without us, evolution, extinction, bioge- anatomy. ography, diversity, disparity, and other intensely In an interesting commentary in The Palaeon- interesting biological issues could never be tological Association Newsletter Number 67, it was addressed. One needs to know who the players noted that the assumptions used for generating are and how many of them are playing to be able to divergence times based upon molecular clocks and evaluate patterns in the natural world. Users of any the statistical reconstruction of ancestral charac- Schweitzer, Carrie E., 2008. Paleontological Systematics in the 21st Century: We Need More Specialists and More Data. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 11, Issue 2; 4E:4p; http://palaeo-electronica.org/paleo/2008_2/commentary/systematics.htm SCHWEITZER: SYSTEMATICS IN THE 21st CENTURY ters in paleobiological studies are exactly contra- (Schweitzer et al. 2002; Schweitzer and Feldmann dictory (Jenner 2008). Thus, there is a critical need 2005, 2008). Systematic evaluation of museum to study actual fossil specimens. collections and newly discovered specimens has Why do we need systematists? Interestingly, elucidated this pattern. Without the work of system- the biological world has long appreciated the need atists within the last two decades, this would not, for highly trained, descriptive taxonomists, could not, be known. although this may not be expressed administra- A major argument that has been suggested to tively in new hires. Biologists even have a name for me is that in traditional descriptive systematics the increasing lack of qualified systematists in vari- (i.e., not cladistics), hypotheses are not tested. ous fields—“the taxonomic impediment.”(Brooks This is simply not true. When a new fossil is found, and Hoberg 2001). Biologists in fields ranging from it is examined and compared to other taxa from the parasitology (Brooks and Hoberg 2001), botany area or others to which it is similar. The working (Landrum 2001), to zoology (Lee 2000; Schram hypotheses are: A) that it is a new taxon, and B) 2004) all recognize the value of trained system- that it belongs to an already named taxon and the atists. systematist simply needs to determine which one. The esteemed E. O. Wilson has called for the The systematist, through careful observation, description of the world’s flora and fauna—and that description, and comparison, determines which must be done by systematists (in Landrum 2001). hypothesis is supported by the preponderance of Feldmann and Manning (1992), crustacean pale- the evidence at hand, and hopefully, beyond a rea- ontologists and biologists respectively, addressed sonable doubt, if a new taxon is to be named. The this issue in one of paleontology’s flagship journals. hypothesis that a new species has been found is Even our major funding agency, the NSF, has tested repeatedly over time, as new fossils are extensive programs recognizing the need to recovered and compared with holotype and para- describe, catalog, and derive phylogenetic hypoth- type specimens. This is what leads to synonymies eses for the world’s biota through their AToL in the literature. (Assembling the Tree of Life), PEET (Partnerships Rancor between systematists and other pale- for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy), and BSI ontologists is unproductive, and probably counter- (Biological Surveys and Inventories) programs productive, to the advancement of paleontological (Schram 2004). studies. We paleontologists comprise a small However, although Adrain and Westrop group, and there are a small number of jobs, fos- (2003) called for additional funding for such initia- sils, and areas in which to work. Such animosity tives within the Earth Sciences at NSF, I have seen only serves to hinder constructive collaborations surprisingly little support for such programs. that could yield paleontological products much Recent proposals, such as the Future Research greater than the sum of the systematic, mathemati- Directions in Paleontology, call for the establish- cal, or other parts. There is a genuine need to col- ment of research “observatories” and the like (Bot- lect, identify, and describe new taxa in all groups as tjer 2006). Although often mentioned in passing, well as to analyze the resulting data in mathemati- missing from these proposals is a clear statement cal, reproducible ways. Non-systematists who of the importance of training systematists to be attempt to unravel evolutionary patterns, extinction experts in certain groups of organisms. patterns, ecological trends, and biogeographic pat- Why do new species of extinct invertebrates terns without the collaboration of knowledgeable need to be described—isn’t the Sepkoski Curve systematists do so at their peril. This is also a rele- good enough as it is? Aren’t we just filling in vant time to point out that museums, and those that details? Disdain for the description of new taxa fun- curate their collections (often systematists), are damentally presumes that there are no new pat- great repositories of information, and that new spe- terns in invertebrate paleontology left to be found. cies and new discoveries are lying in wait to be dis- Not so. For example, it clearly can be demon- covered in these collections (see Allmon 2005). strated that previous hypotheses about the evolu- It is notable that many paleontologists are tionary radiations of the decapods are not attracted to paleontology as an area of study based supportable, based upon the description of new upon fantastic specimens and the prospect of field taxa. A major radiation within the group certainly work in exotic places. Systematic paleontology fills occurred during the Eocene (Glaessner 1960, the bill on both fronts. And in the public arena, peo- 1969), but it was not the only one: others occurred ple come to museums to see …. Specimens! Of during the Jurassic, Late Cretaceous, and Miocene course, they’d also like to know about interesting 2 PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG research that’s going with those specimens, using NSF grants EF-0531670, INT-0313606, and INT- their tax dollars. But they want to see new species, 0003058 to Feldmann and Schweitzer and OPP- new occurrences, the oldest bird, the newest dino- 9909184 to Feldmann and Bice supported the work saur, the biggest clam, the weirdest snail. of the author cited herein. I have noticed over time that vertebrate pale- ontologists do not seem to experience the kind of REFERENCES antagonism that I have heard directed at inverte- Adrain, J.M. and Westrop, S.R. 2003. Paleobiodiversity: brate systematists. Indeed, the naming of a new we need more data, Paleobiology, 29:22-25. species of dinosaur, hominid, early fish or amphib- Allmon, W.D. 2005. The importance of museum collec- ian, or Jurassic bird is met with much media atten- tions in paleontology. Paleobiology, 31:1-5. tion and plaudits rather than a disdainful, “Well, it’s Bottjer, D.J., ed. 2006. Future Research Directions in just another new species,” the type of comment I Paleontology.