Taxonomy in a changing world: Seeking solutions for a science in crisis
Taxonomy in a changing world: Seeking solutions for a science in crisis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/10635150701424546
复制
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Kuntner, Matjaz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Agnarsson, Ingi;Kuntner, Matjaz
生物学的基本任务之一是了解地球上生活着什么生物。迄今为止，已描述的物种约有200万种，实际多样性的实际估计在400万至1200万之间（Stork, 1997; Reaka-Kudla et al., 1997）。但是，当物种以越来越快的速度消失时（皮姆和瑞文，2000；托马斯等人，2004），物种发现和描述——分类学——正面临危机（威尔逊，2004；惠勒，2004）。克服这种“分类学障碍”（Rodman and Cody, 2003）是雄心勃勃且正在进行的NSF PEET（加强分类学专业知识的伙伴关系）计划（NSF, 1994）的主要目标，该计划在培训新一代分类学家方面取得了很大成功（Rodman and Cody, 2003）。为了评估NSFPEET计划的影响和分类学的现状，我们对1995年和1997年NSF-PEET的学员进行了调查。PEET会议乐观地将该计划称为分类学的复兴（参见Wheeler， 2004）。但正如许多PEET校友（peetsters）所经历的那样，在找工作时，分类学专业知识很少是必需的，甚至是相关的，尤其是在学术界。此外，大多数顶级进化期刊不考虑对分类学进行修订，只允许在某些引人注目的化石和哺乳动物的特殊情况下进行物种描述（例如，Jones et al., 2005; Gess et al., 2006）。此外，一些排名较低的期刊拒绝分类描述，除非是在一个更广泛的主题的论文中（例如，《动物系统学与进化研究杂志》；见作者指南http://www）。blackwellpublishing。com/journals/jzs)。以分类学为重点的期刊通常具有较低的测量影响，即使是新的、充满活力的、快速的和互动的Zootaxa，也在科学期刊中享有非凡的和前所未有的增长，可以被描述为“巨型期刊”（Zhang, 2006；非官方IF 2005= 0.45）。分类描述——不一定是根据事实（见下文），而是根据惯例——影响不大的科学出版物，除了那些新发现的鸟类、大型哺乳动物或某些化石。在这里，我们认为对分类学的科学影响的一个容易纠正的错误衡量——一个惯例不是
One of the fundamental quests of biology is learning what organisms inhabit the earth. To date approximately 2 million species have been described, with realistic estimates of actual diversity ranging from 4 to 12 million (Stork, 1997; Reaka-Kudla et al., 1997). But while species are disappearing at an ever increasing rate (Pimm and Raven, 2000; Thomas et al., 2004), species discovery and description—taxonomy—is facing a crisis (Wilson, 2004; Wheeler, 2004). Overcoming this" taxonomic impediment"(Rodman and Cody, 2003) is the primary goal of the ambitious and ongoing NSF PEET (Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy) initiative (NSF, 1994), which has enjoyed much success in training a new generation of taxonomists (Rodman and Cody, 2003). To help estimate the impact of the NSFPEET initiative and the status of taxonomy, we surveyed the trainees from the 1995 and 1997 NSF-PEET cohorts. PEET meetings have optimistically labeled the program as therenaissanceof taxonomy (see also Wheeler, 2004). But as many PEET alumni (peetsters) are experiencing, taxonomic expertise is rarely required, or even relevant, when it comes to securing a job, especially in academia. Furthermore, most top-ranking evolutionary journals do not consider taxonomic revisions, and only allow species descriptions in exceptional cases of certain high-profile fossils and mammals (eg, Jones et al., 2005; Gess et al., 2006). Further, some lower ranking journals reject taxonomic descriptions unless in a paper on a broader subject (eg, the Journal of Zoological Sys-tematics and Evolutionary Research; see author guidelines at http://www. blackwellpublishing. com/journals/jzs). Journals focusing on taxonomy typically have low measured impact, even the new and vibrant, rapid and interactive Zootaxa, which is enjoying an extraordinary and unprecedented growth among scientific journals and can be characterized as a" mega-journal"(Zhang, 2006; unofficial IF 2005= 0.45). Taxonomic descriptions are—not necessarily by fact (see below), but by convention—lowimpact scientific publications, barring those of newly discovered bird species, large mammals, or certain fossils. Here we argue that an easily corrected mismeasure of the scientific impact of taxonomy—a convention not