Anthony C. Gill

Taxonomic Impediment or Impediment to Taxonomy? A Commentary on Systematics and the Cybertaxonomic-Automation Paradigm

Marcelo R. de Carvalho AE Flavio A. Bockmann AE Dalton S. Amorim AE Carlos Roberto F. Brandao AE Mario de Vivo AE Jose L. de Figueiredo AE Heraldo A. Britski AE Mario C. C. de Pinna AE Naercio A. Menezes AE Fernando P. L. Marques AE Nelson Papavero AE Eliana M. Cancello AE Jorge V. Crisci AE John D. McEachran AE Robert C. Schelly AE John G. Lundberg AE Anthony C. Gill AE Ralf Britz AE Quentin D. Wheeler AE Melanie L. J. Stiassny AE Lynne R. Parenti AE Larry M. Page AE Ward C. Wheeler AE Julian Faivovich AE Richard P. Vari AE Lance Grande AE Chris J. Humphries AE Rob DeSalle AE Malte C. Ebach AE Gareth J. Nelson

O Cladistics, Where Art Thou?

Over a decade and half ago, the Willi Hennig Society became (once again) embroiled in debate, vigorous and lively, at times betraying a degree of fear and loathing. Such debate is necessary—even healthy within a scholastic community. Yet, given the passage of time, our community, systematists and biogeographers, have been plagued with items that might be considered futile, if not entirely worthless. Such matters as the Phylocode, DNA taxonomy and barcoding, for example, have risen to prominence despite criticism of their many flaws and illogical conclusions. The attempts of these applied technologies to derail almost 250 years of scholarship are barely even questioned by our own peers with only a few taking a stand (e.g., Will and Rubinoff, 2004; Wheeler, 2005). Moreover proponents of barcoding and the Phylocode shrug off scholarly criticism in favor of plentiful funding opportunities and career prospects. Valid criticisms of barcoding that highlight these grave concerns are simply disregarded as ‘‘... having been controversial’’ (Lahaye et al., 2008, p. 293). Rather than answer their critics, barcoders simply continue barcoding and publishing, as though doing so validates their argument. Where is the debate? A decade or so ago cladists would not have stood by as population geneticists proposed ways in which to build phylogenies (sensu Sneath and Sokal, 1973; Felsenstein, 2004). Associations, such as the Willi Hennig society, and journals, such as Cladistics, were erected in order to tackle the growing problem of pheneticists, purveyors of overall similarity, clustering and divergence rates. Rather than challenge molecular systematists and their numerical taxonomic methods, we take part. Where is our integrity? Cladists also rebelled against the paleontologists of the past, opening up phylogenetics to a whole new generation of non-palaeontologists. Now we allow ourselves to be called neontologists, as if we still have no idea of the past and are floundering in the present with extant data. We listen too intently to population geneticists as they dictate how taxonomy should be practiced (Godfray, 2002, 2007). Imagine a scene 20 years ago, of Sneath and Sokal advising cladists how to find sets within their data while members of the Willi Hennig Society quietly sit by and absorb it in all its glory. Where are the cries of outrage? Barcoding is understood as a ‘‘solution’’ (to what, one might ask?), systematics journals are infested with phenetics and population genetics (cladistics has vanished), both, seemingly, directing the course and future of taxonomy. Where are the scholars? What happened to the Cladistic Revolution? Today, students appear to have no knowledge of that Revolution. They graduate as students did so before the Revolution, with a sound knowledge of phenetics, ancestor worship and a healthy dose of molecular genetics. What happened to taxonomy and cladistics? Cladists have a choice. Look back at the 30 years of debate, scholarship and achievement. We cladists developed the methods, the techniques, the theory and practical ways with which to deal with the challenges today, be it systematics, taxonomy, biogeography or biodiversity. We can admit defeat and let erroneous technologies and ideas slowly erode 250 years of scholarship or we can take charge of our own field again. The time spent in battle with ourselves has left us exhausted and tired of constant infighting. It is time to take a really good hard look at ourselves, regroup and act—if nothing else, at least the battle will be with a real enemy.