Taxonomy suicide?

Journalists have long been working on the principle of "no sensation - no news". Sometimes it seems that something similar is happening in science ... alas! There are "regular" rifles, and there are sniper rifles. The latter are usually used when they can not cope with the task with the help of the first one. But no one thinks of arming everyone without exception with weapons with optics. So it is here. Molecular medicine is useful in controversial cases, but it is not a panacea.

Suicides are different... Suicide to suicide discord...

I understand that the author suggests that before it's too late, "kill ourselves against the wall" to all of us, traditional taxonomists. And the traditional taxonomy itself doesn't feel bad at all. Judging by the ever-increasing number of publications. And there are more and more journals, and I have observed that every year there are at least 10 new publications in the world focused on traditional taxonomy.
Another thing is that in the US, pros at universities really can't get large grants (in the region of millions of pupaars) without the label. And the defense of a Phd in taxonomy in prestigious universities is also not without a fair ride. I would say more about the tendency to marginalize the traditional taxonomy, rather than about suicide.

I understand that the author suggests that before it's too late, "kill ourselves against the wall" to all of us, traditional taxonomists.

I liked this explanation so much that I wanted to convey it in a funny New Year's Eve (that is, not serious ) form:

The author suggests that people with serious hobbies pay for them out of their own pocket, since MOST of those who pay taxes (that is, give money to the state) DO NOT UNDERSTAND why this money should go to subsidize the hobbies of other adults.

Well, those who began to notice that the yard is no longer the 19th century, and even not the 20th, can still receive money for research from the state as well.

This very specific inferiority of taxonomists is shown. They couldn't do it there, and they couldn't do it here. I see a certain psychiatric context here. I'm a psychiatrist, after all.

It's not just" them", we also have a trend... for example, why do we need a pet museum and taxonomists who deal with all sorts of nonsense that is not at all applied to our agricultural and other parascientific disciplines?

Duc eta... You give Skolkovo! Blah...

It's not just" them", we also have a trend... for example, why do we need a pet museum and taxonomists who deal with all sorts of nonsense that is not at all applied to our agricultural and other parascientific disciplines?

I think, Galya (by the way, I'm glad to see you on the forum!) that the situation in Novosibirsk is not the worst yet. Maybe I'm wrong.

I was also persuaded by all sorts of PCR and DNA extractions in Moldova, but I did not succumb. We have made concrete progress on this issue. Taxonomists can probably survive in the aggressive environment of the advancing galaxy, but they only need to move new ideas from related scientific areas. For example, I would like to go to GIS, but so far without software, and due to lack of time, it is not very easy to move. All these molecular scientists, according to the efforts made in writing their works, spend much less effort than the field and end-of-year work of a taxonomist, when he needs to dig up tons of material for presentable work, so that it is clear what the degree is hung up for. Sorry about the taxonomy.

So what, the quality of work is determined by how much you need to "puff" on it? For me, the quality of work, in this case taxonomic identification, is determined by the stability of the system(taxonomic, in the sense). And if there is such a device in which I put a bug, pressed a button, and it immediately gave out the name, and/or a set of markers that allow you to reliably describe the new view, if it is new, then I'm all for it. Is anyone against it?

So what, the quality of work is determined by how much you need to "puff" on it? For me, the quality of work, in this case taxonomic identification, is determined by the stability of the system(taxonomic, in the sense). And if there is such a device in which I put a bug, pressed a button, and it immediately gave out the name, and/or a set of markers that allow you to reliably describe the new view, if it is new, then I'm all for it. Is anyone against it?

Like this?

Pictures:

shneer_2.jpg — (95.55 k)

Proctos, hmm, sort of, but it's not real)

Like this?

Proctos, where and how much did you get??? How does it work with the warranty?

Good theme! There is no time for discussion, unfortunately...

probably Chinese...it will break in 2 weeks

It seems to me that traditional taxonomy has far from exhausted its resources, especially if we recall the possibilities of studying preimaginal systems. For numerous insect species, even European ones, no one has looked at genitalia. Many types do not have nomenclature types... you can list them for a long time. It is difficult for me to understand the terrible confrontation between new trends and traditional taxonomy. Why is this happening? The most interesting thing is that all strong geneticists who work in parallel or worked in traditional taxonomy do not deny, but, on the contrary, speak of the extreme importance of preserving traditions in this craft.

Traditional taxonomy will never exhaust its resources as long as the scooper is firmly in the hands of the right authorities If a reliable classification is developed based on DNA and/or other molecular complexes, then what difference does it make whether it is an imago or a larva, a female or a male? This is the advantage of this approach.
If such forums existed at the time of the penetration of microscopy into biology, then surely there would have been something similar-the struggle of opponents and supporters of microscopy

The best comparison, and even from a practitioner, I have not yet met.

It's like our Japanese condole shovel and Japanese Kamatsu excavator.

It's a shame for people who don't want to let the shovel out of their hands.

Sometimes I'll say something about something that hurts, and then I'll scold myself ...
however, you can't do all the work while sitting in a tie at the backhoe. Sometimes, in order to do high-quality and accurate work, it is precisely this shovel that is needed. Fortunately, if the excavator is controlled by reasonable people, and if this excavator does not get ......... who are ready to crush all the achievements of the past under it. We will destroy the old world, we will create a new one ... somehow we are already tired.

There are excellent, in my opinion, synthesis works, for example:
Wallin H., Nylannder U., Kvamme T. 2009 Two sibling species of Leiopus Audinet-Serville, 1835 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from Europe: L. nebulosus (Linnaeus, 1758) and L. linnei sp. nov. - Zootaxa ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) : 31–45

As can be seen from this work, on one track the guys would not have hooted far. After all, it was necessary to analyze 300 copies from different European countries, travel to museums, work with standard material, and probably get permission to work with such material is not a matter of an hour. Yes, and just to connect with colleagues on processing their material is also a matter of more than one day. Raise synonyms, neotypes, and understand the authenticity and reliability of data. In addition, the type material was grown from larvae, the larvae themselves were measured, genitalia, frontal plate. Probably they didn't pick out the larvae from the wood either by using their minds or using a marker. And only after the accumulated array of data, the excavator went into action, where the shovel was powerless.

This post was edited by Trofim - 05.01.2011 17: 30

No, of course, the use of the molecular approach itself, as well as external or intra - morphological features, is only a method, only much more powerful (if used with understanding of course!)

After all, behind ANY sign is a piece of DNA with its own sequence.
Now the question is, which of them is easier to find what distinguishes one type from another?
Earlier (by poverty) it was always just the first one, now the second one is being added as well!

The taxonomist himself as the one who directs a shovel or excavator To the RIGHT PLACE does not go anywhere! Just now he still needs to master the profession of an excavator operator! But this has always been the case, because science does not stand still.

This post was edited by amara - 05.01.2011 18: 17

>After all, behind ANY sign is a piece of DNA with its own sequence.

Whatever it is! First, the same trait can be caused not only by different alleles, but even by different loci (which is clearly visible, for example, in the eye color of drosophila). Secondly, many traits are defined polygenically. Finally, selection, including stabilizing selection, affects the phenotype, not the genotype , which means that in the course of evolution, it is possible to replace the genetic basis of a phenotypically unchanged trait. Now we add to this duplication of genes with subsequent separation of functions (and this, apparently, is the main mechanism for the appearance of new genes) - and how to figure out which gene is homologous to which (respectively, and the signs too)? In general, "jumping over" to the "molecular" is not as easy as it may seem.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 05.01.2011 18: 32

There are 2 good review publications on this topic (this is what immediately came to mind):
1. Inge-Vechtomov S. G. Block principle in the theory of evolution. Perspectives and paradoxes. In: Fundamental Zoological Research. Theory and methods. KMK, Moscow, St. Petersburg, 2004.
2.Kolchanov N. A., Suslov V. V. Coding and evolution of complexity of biological organization. In: Evolution of the biosphere and Biodiversity. To the 70th anniversary of A. Y. Rozanov. KMK, Moscow, 2006.
The second one is definitely on the web (I'll try to remember where), and I saw it on sale quite recently, but it costs like a steam locomotive.

And once again, "they don't jump over the rope", but they use it as a tool, and it is very powerful.

I completely agree with this, "molecular" is just another method that is very powerful, but requires "direct hands" to apply.

This is not a search for compromising material, it is only a desire to show that everything is very difficult. If I offended you, I apologize.

This is actually a very difficult question, as evidenced by very often inconsistent cladograms based on different genes for the same groups.

The question is actually very difficult, as evidenced by very often inconsistent cladograms based on different genes for the same groups.

But this is normal, if you build cladograms based on individual signs, they will also often be different. Sequences are also signs. As far as I know, cladograms based on 1-2 signs are no longer Comme il faut, reviewers demand more.

I completely agree with this, "molecular" is just another method that is very powerful, but requires "direct hands" to apply.

That's for sure. And correct interpretation.

Are taxonomists at risk of extinction?

And here we discuss an article that claims that the number of taxonomists is increasing. However, it is not entirely clear WHO can be considered taxonomists? The authors of the article, apparently, conducted a simple calculation: these are all authors of taxonomic articles. And it's true: if a person is featured in the description of a new species, then he can formally call himself a taxonomist. And now who can figure out how many of them are real, and how many are dubious.

http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/syst2011.htm offer to discuss....