At the point we have reached in taxonomy and systematics today, it seems that we are in a situation where details and extremes (in the popular sense) ignore the basics (in the classical sense). Therefore, in a popular sense, we seem to be in a situation (especially by amateur researchers) in which many researchers publish articles without adequate knowledge of the scientific foundations, or even if they do, ignoring these foundations. From this point of view, I think that we should remember the scientific foundations again and know what and how the studies serve.
In this sense, what is taxonomy iessentially and clearly? From what need and how did it arise? What is its main subject and approach? And again, what is systematic essentially and clearly? From what need and how did it arise? What is its main subject and approach?
I think these questions should be answered clearly.
Can a systematic study be done without knowing the taxonomy and a taxonomic study without knowing the systematics? Concisely and clearly, what is a taxonomic study and what does it encompass? What and how does it serve? Also concisely and clearly, what is a systematic study and what does it encompass? What and how does it serve?
I would appreciate if you could share your valuable ideas...
I agree with your view. We can take inputs from any other approach apart classical plant taxonomy but to use those knowledge effectively, sound knowledge of the taxonomic groups is of utmost importance
Whatsoever the advances may be, the basic objective of taxonomy remains unchanged. It still deals with the naming, identification and classification of living organisms as per certain systems.
A suggestion:
Article The taxonomic impediment: a shortage of taxonomists, not the...
Taxonomy today has two different, but in the end converging goals: the classifying of living organisms (already said; Tapas Chakrabarty ) but also the proper understanding of the ecological requirements of the (new) taxa that are described. The typical activity of the latter function is the breaking up of species complexes into finer taxa that have different ecological requirements, live in different niches and hence generally also have different conservation status. New names in taxonomy therefore are an important prerequisite for species protection. « Naming the taxa that require protection is often the starting point of conservation programs » (from: Dussex N., Taylor H., Irestedt M. & Robertson B. (2018) When genetic and phenotypic data do not agree: the conservation implications of ignoring inconvenient taxonomic evidence, in: New Zealand Journal of Ecology 42 (2): 1–7.)
Jean-Paul: Taxonomy is one thing, ecology is another, anf conservation is still another - they are important to each other, often (ecology) help in interpretation, but their direct aims are different and so they should not be mixed. A taxonomist need not to be ecologist, to describe and/or classify a taxon ecological or conservationist considerations may (ecological) sometimes help (providing useful suggestions) but often (especially conservationist) lead astray ("make the subspecies X a full species to increase its conservation status"), reducing taxonomy from serious branch of science to a formal game!
I agree with Dr. Roman, the field of Taxonomy and Ecology are different, they should not be mixed.
With the advancement in molecular techniques in recent times, taxonomy and systematics have evolved as two different field, nowadays taxonomist only deals with identification and nomenclature of a taxon, whereas systematics mainly focuses on evolutionary relationships between groups, origin of species, phylogeography and molecular phylogeny.
Hello Huseyin; Any study we might think of must be subjected to peer review and editorial scrutiny. If the manuscript fails to meet prevailing standards in the field it shouldn't be published at all. The real issue we are discussing seems to focus on the competence of the referees selected by the editors. That has always been a problem that has intensified over the decades because there are so few willing, competent researchers who are able (willing) to deal with the flood of manuscripts. I don't know how to fix that problem. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
James: "If the manuscript fails to meet prevailing standards in the field it shouldn't be published at all." It suffices to replace the grandiloquent expression "prevailing standards" with much more adequate "prevailing opinions", "prevailing preconceptions", "prevailing fashions" or even "prevailing superstitions" to see that according to this philosophy none of the most important ideas, discoveries or interpretations in the history (from ancient to recent) of science - those of Copernicus, Darwin, Wegener, Boltzmann &c. - would have ever been published ["shouldn't be published at all"?]!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking