Malte C. Ebach

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

Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy: accessibility and impact evaluation

There has been much discussion of the “taxonomic impediment”. This phrase confuses two kinds of impediment: an impediment to end users imposed by lack of reliable information; and impediments to taxonomy itself, which vary from insufficient funding to low citation rates of taxonomic monographs. In order to resolve both these types of impediment, taxonomy needs to be revitalized through funding and training taxonomists, as well as investing in taxonomic revisions and monographs rather than technological surrogates such as DNA barcoding.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2011.

Paralogy and the Centre of Origin Concept

Ancestral area methodology, applied to finding the centre of origin, conflicts with most cladistic biogeographic methods since it uses, not reduces, paralogy. A new term, area cladistics, is herein proposed as an efficient paralogy‐free (or reduced) method under the three‐item philosophy that currently exists with other methods under the broad term cladistic biogeography.

CLADISTIC ANALYSIS OF DASYUROMORPHIAN (MARSUPIALIA) PHYLOGENY USING CRANIAL AND DENTAL CHARACTERS

Abstract Dasyuromorphian relationships were investigated using cladistic analysis for 24 species using 77 cranial and dental features. Among the 7 extinct taxa used were 6 recently described fossil species, each well represented by cranial and dental material (3 ameridelphians, 1 peramelemorphian, and 2 dasyuromorphians). Monophyly for the Dasyuromorphia and several clades widely recognized therein is supported, but in many instances, relationships among extant dasyurids departs greatly from general consensus. Where congruence with previous investigations is evident, few taxa are united by unique synapomorphies within Marsupialia. Many clades are united by combinations of locally derived features only. Bootstrap and Bremer support is weak for most clades. Thus, although supported by cladistic analysis, the status of many synapomorphies identified in the course of this study are tentative. However, for some groups, notably Dasyuridae and a dasyurid clade inclusive of all modern subfamilies, the synapomorphic nature of some derived features appears to be robust, even where they also are present in some outgroup taxa. This argument applies to shared apomorphies of the basicranium in particular. No potential sister taxon to Dasyuromorphia is favored. The case for australidelphian and microbiotheriid affinity of some American and Antarctic fossil taxa was considered to be highly equivocal.

Quantifying Phytogeographical Regions of Australia Using Geospatial Turnover in Species Composition

The largest digitized dataset of land plant distributions in Australia assembled to date (750,741 georeferenced herbarium records; 6,043 species) was used to partition the Australian continent into phytogeographical regions. We used a set of six widely distributed vascular plant groups and three non-vascular plant groups which together occur in a variety of landscapes/habitats across Australia. Phytogeographical regions were identified using quantitative analyses of species turnover, the rate of change in species composition between sites, calculated as Simpsons beta. We propose six major phytogeographical regions for Australia: Northern, Northern Desert, Eremaean, Eastern Queensland, Euronotian and South-Western. Our new phytogeographical regions show a spatial agreement of 65% with respect to previously defined phytogeographical regions of Australia. We also confirm that these new regions are in general agreement with the biomes of Australia and other contemporary biogeographical classifications. To assess the meaningfulness of the proposed phytogeographical regions, we evaluated how they relate to broad scale environmental gradients. Physiographic factors such as geology do not have a strong correspondence with our proposed regions. Instead, we identified climate as the main environmental driver. The use of an unprecedentedly large dataset of multiple plant groups, coupled with an explicit quantitative analysis, makes this study novel and allows an improved historical bioregionalization scheme for Australian plants. Our analyses show that: (1) there is considerable overlap between our results and older biogeographic classifications; (2) phytogeographical regions based on species turnover can be a powerful tool to further partition the landscape into meaningful units; (3) further studies using phylogenetic turnover metrics are needed to test the taxonomic areas.

Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again

Recent commentary by Costello and collaborators on the current state of the global taxonomic enterprise attempts to demonstrate that taxonomy is not in decline as feared by taxonomists, but rather is increasing by virtue of the rate at which new species are formally named. Having supported their views with data that clearly indicate as much, Costello et al. make recommendations to increase the rate of new species descriptions even more. However, their views appear to rely on the perception of species as static and numerically if not historically equivalent entities whose value lie in their roles as “metrics”. As such, their one‐dimensional portrayal of the discipline, as concerned solely with the creation of new species names, fails to take into account both the conceptual and epistemological foundations of systematics. We refute the end‐user view that taxonomy is on the rise simply because more new species are being described compared with earlier decades, and that, by implication, taxonomic practice is a formality whose pace can be streamlined without considerable resources, intellectual or otherwise. Rather, we defend the opposite viewpoint that professional taxonomy is in decline relative to the immediacy of the extinction crisis, and that this decline threatens not just the empirical science of phylogenetic systematics, but also the foundations of comparative biology on which other fields rely. The allocation of space in top‐ranked journals to propagate views such as those of Costello et al. lends superficial credence to the unsupportive mindset of many of those in charge of the institutional fate of taxonomy. We emphasize that taxonomy and the description of new species are dependent upon, and only make sense in light of, empirically based classifications that reflect evolutionary history; homology assessments are at the centre of these endeavours, such that the biological sciences cannot afford to have professional taxonomists sacrifice the comparative and historical depth of their hypotheses in order to accelerate new species descriptions.

Drowning by Numbers: Rereading Nelson's “Nullius in Verba”

Three-item data are a new way of looking at homology. Past views on homology are contrasted, and some historical details of the development of the concept are given. Application of three-item data is given for some simple examples, with a detailed series of problems outlined in the appendix (from a privately, informally published pamphlet entitled “Nullius in Verba,” by G. Nelson).

Cladistic Biogeography: Component-Based Methods and Paleontological Application

In 1985 Jablonski et al reviewed biogeographic methods in paleobiology, observing “The impact of vicariance biogeography on paleobiogeographic research has been minimal thus far”. They recognized that the cladistic aproach to biogeography pioneered by Platnick and Nelson (1978) and Rosen (1978) offered explicitness and clarity of hypotheses, and attributed the dearth of cladistically-based studies of biogeography to the limited number of cladistic phylogenies then available. The ensuing years have witnessed the wide-spread use of cladistic systematic methods in paleontology, yet the biogeographic aspect of cladograms has largely been ignored. Our chapter aims to introduce methods in cladistic biogeography to a paleontological audience, using examples drawn from fossil distributions. An overview of cladistic biogeography up to 1994 is provided by Morrone and Crisci (1995), and more comprehensive and updated treatments are given by Humphries and Parenti (1999) and Lieberman (2000).

A question of conflict: three-item and standard parsimony compared

Abstract A simple example of conflicting data, relevant to comparison between standard and three‐item parsimony analysis, is two characters (nodes, trees) differently relating four taxa: (AB)CD and A(BCD). This conflict is differently resolved by standard and three‐item analysis, which with fractional weighting yields the unique result (AB)(CD). There is reason to consider this result as the more accurate resolution of these conflicting data.

What, Exactly, is Cladistics? Re-writing the History of Systematics and Biogeography

The development of comparative biology (systematics) has been of interest to philosophers and historians. Particular attention has been placed on the ‘war’ of the 1970s and 1980s, the apparent dispute among those who preferred this or that methodology. In this contribution we examine the history of comparative biology from the perspective of fundamentals rather than methodologies. Our examination is framed within the artificial—natural classification dichotomy, a viewpoint currently lost from view but worth resurrecting.