Revisionary taxonomy in a changing e-landscape Malcolm J. Scoble, Ben R. Clark, H. Charles J. Godfray, Ian J. Kitching & Simon J. Mayo Fixed-publication (whether paper, CD-ROM or PDF files) as the medium for descriptive taxonomy is being challenged almost by default and is unlikely to survive in the long-term – at least as the sole means of publication. The future is already apparent in a number of online approaches to revisionary (descriptive, monographic) taxonomy that involve continuous addition and correction of data. Such information comes from single source web pages to databases linked in distributed networks. The ubiquity of the Internet for promoting particular views is likely to be too strong to resist, however persuasive the arguments for control by the codes of nomenclature. This prediction is strengthened by the diminishing workforce of professional taxonomists (who are largely responsible for shaping the Codes) involved in describing life on the planet. While taxonomists may be unable to control taxonomic content in the new and more anarchic medium (other than within their own diminishing community), they do have the opportunity to shape the field to the benefit of their own close community and the much wider (yet undefined) user base. An Internet-based approach to revisionary taxonomy is described in the CATE project (www.cate-project.org). This allows new taxonomic proposals to be made against an integral community style peer-review process forming part of the workflow. It also provides the opportunity for high quality products to be maintained through the incorporation of well-tested taxonomic standards. We also consider that there is much merit in treating taxonomy overtly as an information science, while still regarding it as an intellectual endeavour in its own right. This shift in emphasis is explored by examining the growing influence of e-projects in the changing taxonomy landscape. Malcolm J. Scoble* & Ian J. Kitching, Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK. [email protected], [email protected] Ben R. Clark & H. Charles J. Godfray, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK. [email protected], [email protected] Simon J. Mayo, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. [email protected] Introduction 2004). Prominent among the practical reasons is the This paper examines some issues about e-taxonomy, value of producing an inventory of life on the planet so the implicit assumption is made that taxonomy (e.g., and notably, the United Nations Conference is desirable – it is, indeed, an integral part of hu- on Environment and Development (UNCED, also man communication about species. There has been a known as the Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janei- number of justifications for the discipline, both acad- ro in 1992 http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro. emic and practical (e.g., papers in Godfray & Knapp html and, more recently, the G8 Potsdam Initiative Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 150: 305–317, Figs 1–3. [ISSN 0040–7496]. http://www.nev.nl/tve © 2007 Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging. Published 1 December 2007. Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 04:57:49PM * Corresponding author via free access 306 Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, volume 150, 2007 on Biodiversity 2007, http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/ is expected from a printed monograph, with an environment/env070317-gabriel.htm). analytical treatment of all the included taxa. Unlike What should be meant by inventory is not just a com- most printed monographs, online versions have the prehensive list of taxa (although that goal is difficult capacity to be more extensively illustrated and ar- enough to achieve in itself), but the provision of the ranged so that the information is more appropriately kind of rich information that is traditionally made presented than that typically offered in the succinct available in good quality monographic treatments, style of traditional monographs. Even more impor- whether regional or global. Considerable success tant, such online treatments have two other key bene- has been achieved in the provision of underpinning fits. One is that they are updatable within a short taxonomic infrastructure for revisionary taxonomy space of time, which is decidedly not the case with (specimens, collections, taxon names), although printed monographs. Typically decades pass between there is far to go before the metadata associated with the appearance of successive comprehensive rev- the specimens housed in the plethora of collections isions with additions being published in the interim around the world are computerised and made avail- as short, disjunct papers. The other benefit is that able online, let alone digital images of the specimens. online versions have the capacity to be improved The BioCASE project (www.biocase.org) provides a and expanded by the taxonomic community at large mechanism to link specimen (unit)- and collection- rather than just the author(s) of the treatment. level databases and has a web user-interface, enabling It has been suggested, inter alia, (Dayrat 2005) that taxonomists to gain access to details of specimens new species names should be created for a taxon such as their depositories, type-status and geographi- only if a recent taxonomic revision deals with all the cal location. The Species 2000 and ITIS Catalogue names of the group. Although this and other propos- of Life (http://www.catalogueoflife.org/info_about_ als made in the same paper are probably impracti- col.php), provides access to species names and associ- cal (Esselstyn 2007), Dayrat’s point is one that will ated data through its federated system of 47 distrib- resonate with many taxonomists. All too often the uted databases compiled (and owned) by a variety lack of access to up to date critical treatments leads of authors, and the Global Biodiversity Information to the description of synonyms, and for very many Facility (www.gbif.org) is an international body set taxa no recent revision exists. Even in the case of such up specifically to provide access to biodiversity in- a conspicuous and relatively popular taxon as hawk- formation, currently mainly taxonomic names and moths (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae), the previous glo- specimens. bal revision was published over 100 years ago (Roth- There is also, a great deal of information on the schild & Jordan 1903). (The annotated catalogue Internet about species and higher taxa beyond to this group by Kitching & Cadiou (2000), which this basic level. Yet few comprehensive treatments corrects and updates the names, was never intended exist online that are equivalent to what we expect to to be a revision enabling specimens to be identified see in monographic treatments. Most taxonomy on to species.) Dayrat’s understandable concern could the Internet (leaving aside electronic journals), takes be met if taxonomists were to focus their efforts on the form of HTML pages posted by individuals. critically synthesising current knowledge and mak- Encouragingly, there is a growing number of web- ing it available at one place online, thus providing sites developed by special interest groups for the ex- a platform for new species (and associated informa- change of information on particular taxa (e.g., www. tion) to be added. tortricid.net; www.antweb.org and the ‘scratchpads’ Both cultural and technical factors are responsible of the EDIT project, see www.editwebrevisions. for impeding the vision of user-friendly, online and info/scratchpadSiteList). Notable among those rapidly updatable taxonomic databases. With regard websites that are more comprehensive in their cov- to culture, taxonomists have sometimes shared their erage are the extensive knowledge bases on, among knowledge, but typically the production of mono- others, fishes (www.fishbase.org), bumblebees graphic content has been done in a solitary fashion (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/ or perhaps with one or a few co-authors. This ap- bombus/index.html), and echinoids (http:// proach has been effective in many ways, given the www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/ demonstrably large corpus of paper-published infor- echinoid-directory/). mation. Where it has fallen short is in the scattered We believe (e.g., Godfray 2002; Scoble 2004; God- nature of the literature on most taxa that it gave rise fray et al. in press) that taxonomic revisions for to, in effect rendering most of the information rela- each major taxon should be both accessible on the tively inaccessible to those unable to benefit from the Internet and frequently updated. Ideally, each taxon few large specialist taxonomic libraries. Dedicated would have a consensus taxonomy, including what users may buy monographs for their taxon or taxa Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 04:57:49PM via free access Scoble et al.: Revisionary taxonomy in a changing e-landscape 307 of interest, should they exist, and may also make a building the websites. They are designed to allow and small personal collection of other key papers. But encourage wider engagement and collaboration by in a world where expeditious access to information those interested in the taxon in question. through the Internet is becoming an expectation, A possible reason for the difficulty in getting taxono- the situation in taxonomy seems untenable. This has mists to work as one is not because they are necessar- profound implications for taxonomists. We believe ily more intransigent than scientists in other fields, that taxonomy is a necessary part of human know- but rather because their ‘raw’ data (specimens, spe- ledge, whether for ‘academic’ or practical purposes. cies identifications) are usually highly interpreted (to So should taxonomists fail to meet wider needs, us- what species does a specimen belong?, and how is ers are likely to derive information wherever they can a species delimited?). Taxonomists are more likely find it on the Internet, with everything that this im- to debate the underlying interpretation of the fun- plies for quality assurance.