Three Challenges to Contemporaneous Taxonomy from a Licheno-Mycological Perspective
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Megataxa 001 (1): 078–103 ISSN 2703-3082 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/mt/ MEGATAXA Copyright © 2020 Magnolia Press Review ISSN 2703-3090 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.1.16 Three challenges to contemporaneous taxonomy from a licheno-mycological perspective ROBERT LÜCKING Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Straße 6–8, 14195 Berlin, Germany �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3431-4636 Abstract Nagoya Protocol, and does not need additional “policing”. Indeed, the Nagoya Protocol puts the heaviest burden on This paper discusses three issues that challenge contempora- taxonomy and researchers cataloguing biodiversity, whereas neous taxonomy, with examples from the fields of mycology for the intended target group, namely those seeking revenue and lichenology, formulated as three questions: (1) What is gain from nature, the protocol may not actually work effec- the importance of taxonomy in contemporaneous and future tively. The notion of currently freely accessible digital se- science and society? (2) An increasing methodological gap in quence information (DSI) to become subject to the protocol, alpha taxonomy: challenge or opportunity? (3) The Nagoya even after previous publication, is misguided and conflicts Protocol: improvement or impediment to the science of tax- with the guidelines for ethical scientific conduct. Through onomy? The importance of taxonomy in society is illustrated its implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, Colombia has using the example of popular field guides and digital me- set a welcome precedence how to exempt taxonomic and dia, a billion-dollar business, arguing that the desire to name systematic research from “access to genetic resources”, and species is an intrinsic feature of the cognitive component of hopefully other biodiversity-rich countries will follow this nature connectedness of humans. While continuous societal example. support of a critical mass of taxonomists is necessary to cata- logue all species on Earth, it is shown that this is a finite task, Key words: amateur taxonomy, biopiracy, fungal diversity, and a proposal is made how a remaining 10 million species impact factor, sixth mass extinction, taxonomic impediment can be catalogued within 40 years by 1,000 well-trained and dedicated taxonomists, with an investment of $4 billion, cor- responding to 0.0001% of the annual global GDP or 0.005% Introduction of annual military expenditures. Notorious undercitation of actually used taxonomic resources and lack of coverage of Taxonomy is the most fundamental discipline in biodiversity impact metrics for monographs and other taxonomic work research. It is the science that puts names on organisms that cannot be published in indexed journals is discussed and and groups of related organisms (taxa) and arranges these suggestions are made how this problem can be remedied. An increasing methodological gap in approaches to taxonomy, in hierarchical classification systems, with the focus in between classic morphological and advanced genomic stud- establishing names (Judd et al. 2007; Guerra-García et al. ies, affects in particular taxonomists in biodiversity-rich 2008; Kirk et al. 2008; Wilkins 2011; Lew 2018). In contrast, countries and amateurs, also regarding proper training to systematics is concerned with the relationships between apply advanced methods and concepts. To counterbalance taxa and not primarily with naming them, although both this problem, international collaborations bringing different areas are strongly interdependent. Taxonomy establishes expertise to the table and undertaking mutual capacitation hypotheses about relationships between individuals or are one successful remedy. Classic taxonomy still works for lower-level taxa and gives these hypotheses formal names, many groups and is a first approach to catalogue species and whereas systematics tests these relationships, on the base of establish taxon hypotheses, but ultimately each taxonomic which the taxonomy is then adjusted. group needs to be studied with the array of methods proper Taxonomy is divided into three approaches: (1) alpha to the group, including descriptive work. Finally, the Con- taxonomy, the naming of species (“microtaxonomy”); vention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Pro- tocol has put additional burden on basic biodiversity science. (2) beta taxonomy, the arrangement of species into Using lichenology in Latin America and Brazil as an exam- higher-level classifications through named higher taxa ple, it is shown that the spirit of non-monetary benefit-shar- (“macrotaxonomy”); and (3) gamma taxonomy, the naming ing proper to taxonomy and systematics, namely capacita- and classification of infraspecific entities (Mayr 1968, tion, joint publications, and shared reference collections, has 1982a; Winston 1999; Disney 2000; Tahseen 2014). This been increasingly implemented long before the CBD and the division seems at first counterintuitive, as it contradicts the Submitted: 24 Jan. 2020; accepted by Z.-Q. Zhang: 29 Jan. 2020; published: 31 Jan. 2020 73 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ logical sequence from individuals to species to higher taxa, 1. What is the importance of taxonomy in i.e. gamma (= below species), alpha (= species), beta (= contemporaneous and future science and society? above species). However, the term alpha (‘leader’) taxonomy for naming species properly reflects the fact that species The desire and need to name species. The discipline are the fundamental unit of biodiversity research: higher of taxonomy is as old as humankind. While hunting and classifications and the Tree of Life are ultimately based gathering as principle means of survival, humans both on species, and infraspecific entities cannot be established implicitly and explicitly employed—and still employ— before species have been named first. This is also embedded taxonomy (“ethnotaxonomy”) when naming and classifying in the various rules of nomenclature, for lichenology and natural resources according to their potential uses (Sharma mycology the International Code of Nomenclature for 1993; Godfray 2002; Manktelow 2010; Franco et al. 2015; algae, fungi, and plants (ICN; Turland et al. 2018). Si 2016; Krishnamurthy & Adams 2016). The scientific The ICN, as well as the rules of nomenclature for approach to taxonomy, which separates human curiosity animals and bacteria, employ binomials for species names. from immediate applied aspects, goes back several This Linnean-based way of naming is often considered thousand years, but only in the 16th century began its outdated (Cantino et al. 1999; Ereshefsky 2002, 2007), ascent to modern biodiversity science, with the formal but remains a masterpiece of combinatorics, as it allows birth of Linnean taxonomy in the 18th century (Linnaeus to maximize the number of species names that can be 1753, 1758; Gilmour 1951; Mayr 1982b; Stevens 2001; memorized by the human brain (Lücking 2019). The Minelli 2012; Wilson 2005; Tahseen 2014). Linnean binomial allows to immediately place species into While taxonomy is a branch of science, it also the Tree of Life through their genus component, a feature continues to be the most important aspect of “citizen not possible with alternative, non-Linnean names (Cantino science”, particularly expressed so in the widespread et al. 1999; Lücking 2019). The binomial thus combines and popular use of field guides (Law & Lynch 1988; elements of alpha and beta taxonomy, since the genus Stevenson et al. 2003). The International Field Guides name incorporates the lowest hierarchical level at which Database (International Field Guides 2020) features over species are being classified, and at the same time provides 6,500 entries covering all groups of organisms around the linkage to higher categories. The subdiscipline of the globe, between 1954 and present, although the first strict alpha taxonomy does therefore not exist, as naming modern field guides go back to the 19th century (Merriam species simultaneously means to classify them into genera 1890; Barrow 1998) and the database covers only a part as the next higher category. Therefore, alpha taxonomists of all such guides ever published. Some popular field are also beta taxonomists by default, and one could use guides, such as A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and the term “lower beta” taxonomy to reflect this fact. This Europe in the Peterson Field Guides Series, have sold paper focuses on alpha and “lower beta” taxonomy which, over a million times (Johnsgard 2006), and the National compared to “higher beta” and gamma taxonomy, are Audubon Society Field Guide to North American the subdisciplines of taxonomy which have faced, and Mushrooms approximately 200,000 copies. With perhaps continue to be facing, the most substantial challenges in close to 20,000 copies sold globally, Lichens of North contemporaneous biodiversity research (Kitching 1993; America (Brodo et al. 2001) is likely the most popular Carvalho et al. 2007; Wheeler 2008; Ebach et al. 2011; book on lichens published to date; while not quite a field Pearson et al. 2011; Vinarski 2019). guide, it is essentially a taxonomy book based on the One may consider this contribution redundant, as expertise by one of the foremost lichenologists on North almost everything that could be said about this topic in America and two outstanding nature photographers. Field the field of