Perhaps, many non-taxonomists wonder just how it is the experts decide what is a species and what is not? Should it be admitted that taxonomy is a human endeavor, and is not perfect, because we are not perfect, our knowledge is not perfect, and not all species are equally easy to recognize and fair bit of intuition and opinion are involved in classification? But is this a scientific process, or an application of learning?
Dear Francesco,
I understand "Taxonomy" as the science dealing with identification, nomenclature and classification of things.
And what, in your opinion, is the "scientific method"? The aim of scientific research is not to use this or that particular kind of methods declared "scientific" but to increase the verifiable knowledge about the real world, so the applied methods must be, first of all, maximally efficientin discovering the real facts about the world. These facts must, of course, be verifiable, but here is also much confusion as to what does it mean. Any theory, any hypothesis, any "scientifically established fact" is always only more or less probable, never absolutely sure [“facts are nothing more than highly corroborated hypotheses” – ELDREDGE & CRACRAFT (1980)], and so is also its verification: we can only increase that probability. Thus, the only valid way to evaluate a method of scientific study is to evaluate the results obtained by its application, and the only valid way to evaluate these results is to assess the probability of the concluding hypothesis in comparison with possible alternatives [”A hypothesis is never falsified with any disagreeing fact, but only with another hypothesis matched by more facts” – LORENZ (1988)]. Such verification of a hypothesis is absolutely independent from the "scientific" or "non-scientific" method of its derivation, so, to quote famous physicist Percy Bridgman, "The scientific method consists on using your brain, otherwise everything is permissible]. As long as taxonomic statements (incl. delimitation of species) are scientific hypotheses, all the above applies to them as well! [For more extensive argumentation see e.g. my attached paper].
Article 2005. Philosophy of science from a taxonomist’s perspective ...
Should we say that as a discipline, taxonomy is not an exact science and it can actually be divided into two interleaving components - systematic and nomenclature. Nomenclature, is not a scientific process. Systematic, on the other hand, is a scientific process.
Taxonomy is as exact science as any other biological discipline; nomenclature is a "technique" of communication. I do not write more now because within half an hour I leave for Hungary - see you two weeks later!
Best wishes!
Roman
This is an ongoing discusion since years and there is indeed a lack of "scientificity" due to missing reproducability and rigour. But that can and should be avoided by taking taxonomy to the next level and use the possibilities "cyber taxonomy" offers.
Check our paper on this topic and the software we developed to promote a better taxonomy by applying scientific methods:
Article Sample data processing in an additive and reproducible taxon...
First of all, I do not see " science" and " application of learning" as mutually exclusive alternatives. Quite the contrary: " Science" in my opinion is above all a sophisticated application of learning, based on the a priori assumption that a real world exists, the structure and workings of which we can discover.
What makes this application of learning sophisticated, and what distinguishes it from non-sciences in my opinion, is its methodology. Here I have to disagree with Percy Bridgman: Not all is permissible. Methods are only permissible, if it is possible to communicate every step of the way how a new hypothesis/fact/interpretation was discovered/developed. Reproducability and communicability are the discerning features of science, not truth or absolute knowledge, at least in my opinion.
So, justifiable opinions may be permissible, if you communicate your justification, but i feel the use of intuition should be restricted as far as possible to an excuse for missing facts for the sake of operability, and also clearly communicated as such, although even great biologists occasionally violated this principle with statements like " I say this is a species, because i know it is a species, because I have experience, and therefore developed a feeling of what a species is". Which is not science imho.
In this regard, as communication is crucial for the process called "science", I see nomenclature as an integral part of scientific endeavour, because the concepts and reasoning behind terms and denominations have to be as clearly communicated as the results obtained by the application of said terms.
Take for example the term " species" itself, and how its definition was influenced by e.g. the advent of phylogenetic systematics.
How the change of the definition of the term "species" was fostered by its very application in practical taxonomy for me is a prime example of the way of scientific working, and underlines the interdependence of nomenclature and systematics in taxonomy. A stimulating reading for me was " Species concepts and phylogenetic theory - a debate" (link attached).
So in my opinion: Yes, taxonomy is as scientific a discipline as any, not restricted to biology.
http://www.academia.edu/5939565/species_concepts_and_phylogenetic_theory
Perhaps we need to distinguish between taxonomy senso lato and systematics senso stricto here, especially when thinking about higher-level classification. Many field biologists I know think of higher-level classification in purely practical terms, as a method for subdividing biological diversity into units that that the human mind can apprehend and recognise, without any strict need for it to reflect evolutionary relationships. This is not a stance I agree with but it is perfectly defensible. Systematists sensu stricto see taxa as hypotheses of relationship however (with the type of relationship made explicit), which if constructed and tested rigourously I think can be as scientific as those in any other discipline.
But perhaps there is an ambiguous relationship between the scientificity of systematic or phylogenetic hypotheses of relationships and the scientificity of taxa. A taxon may represent a hypothesis of relationship, but the fact that we choose to represent only some such hypotheses (out of the many mutually compatible ones we may have) as taxa has more to do with the structure of the Linnaean system (which has its basis in historical precedent and in the type of practical "taxonomy senso lato" I referred to above) rather than with pure science.
Francesco,
your question is a bit polemic, what makes it very interesting. To first address your question, it's important to define what is science. Science is a colective initiative that, systematically, builds and organizes knowledge about the universe using explanations and predictions. In order to do that, one uses methods which are standardized, replicable and refutable, seeking patterns and processes in the nature.
If we change the word "universe" of our definition of science for "organisms classification" we will see why taxonomy is a science. Each taxa, each species, is a hypothesis that is being tested using specific methods for that as any other scientific research. As any hypothesis, it's likely to be accepted or rejected and, if accepted, one can analyze it and test it again and so on. Serious taxonomists should not work based on what they think, but what they testify.
If you are further interested on that, I leave you some nice articles about taxonomy and its importance for us, non-taxonomists:
Carvalho et al. 2014. Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again. Cladistics.
Carvalho et al. 2007. Taxonomic Impediment or Impediment to Taxonomy? A Commentary on Systematics and the Cybertaxonomic-Automation Paradigm. Evolutionary Biology.
Charles and Godfray 2002. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature.
Cheers!
This must be getting repetitive! Science is simply hypothesis testing. A species gets defined in the context of its morphological and molecular relationships to its putative relatives. That proposal is clearly testable...at least taxonomists spill lots of ink engaged in the enterprise.
As the taxonomy of any group improves so does the coherence of the study of every other aspect of the biology of that group. It is much easier to understand the play when you have the names and relationships of the characters.
That's fun!
Put simply, Taxonomy WAS simply a way of putting millions of species into a series of pigeon holes so that they could be easily found. It is akin to post codes the first letters denoting large areas and the later ones denoting smaller ones inside it down to a road side. Add a house number and that is all you need. New housing estates must be fitted in as needed. In taxonomy, research may move one species into a different pigeon hole [Genus, Family] because it is found to be more like that group than the original one. Cladistics is a method of working out the actual relationship in evolutionary terms between species. The results depend on what characters are deemed important so the results are also liable to change. I feel that Linnaean Taxonomy and Cladistic taxonomy Are different in aims and should be kept separated.
Dear Francesco,
Suppose you have been asked to receive an eminent person in an airport. After arrival of the flight many people will be start coming out suddenly. If you cannot identify the person your presence in the airport is of no use. However, if you can identify the person you will be able to receive him. You may be knowing his name. If not, you can know after receiving the person. In the field of taxonomy there are millions of organisms and they cannot be identified and named so easily. It requires careful scientific observations. Thus in simple words, taxonomy scientifically deals with identification and naming of the organisms and also deals with their classification. Without classification there would have been a chaotic condition like a busy road without traffic signaling system.
I think that all scientific achievements have definitely evolved because of human endeavour and attained perfection in due course of time.
Do you still feel taxonomy is not science?
With best wishes,
Subir.
One would hope that someone employed to conserve nature and claiming expertise in that field would understand a science (taxonomy) that should be but has not been central to that endeavor.
Dear Francesco!
In answer to your question offer links to my articles.
1.Methodological programs of modern biological taxonomy and methodological solutions Eastern European Scientific Journal. 2015 No 1. P.21-28 DOI 10.12851/EESJ 201501C01ART04
2.Project of a theoretical biological systematics: on a way to rapprochement biological systematics and genetics. Eastern European Scientific Journal. 2014 No 2. P.23-48 DOI 10.12851/EESJ 201404ART04
Best regards, Vasily Zuev
Lot's of terrific replies. Scientific names are hypotheses subject to refutation, so count taxonomy as a science. And here is another pub that says that.
Crother, B. I. 2009 Are standard names lists taxonomic straightjackets? Herpetologica 65(2): 129-135.
No intention to be polemic Lucas, nor playing ignorant John. Taxonomy is more and more linked to species conservation. I wished to evaluate view points among expert taxonomists and I think you all gave very good information. Thank you.
Now please consider whether conservation assessments are scientific if made by and credited to Conservation Biologists who cannot identify species or know how they were delimited or where they live or lived and why?
In my opinion conservation assessments are not scientific, though my question was not for my lack of knowledge to identify a species from another, its distribution area, etc. (which I can reassure you I know of) but is: in taxonomy, there exists a precise (scientific) method to identify a species, (maybe new to science) or there isn't. Should I have to rephrase the question as: is taxonomy an exact science? The answers so far have been very exhaustive but I would appreciate yours.
A thing that few people know is that hypothetical deductive method is not the only scientific method, there also exist an analytic deductive one. Additionally, taxa are no other thing than hypothesis proposed. Now if you believe that taxonomy is just looking for a hair different on a leg and getting a new species you may think it is not science; however there is long way more behind that...
I believe, one should avoid mixing in other questions, i.e. if conservation is scientific or not, here.
Taxonomy is the science of naming taxa (with taxa being groups of individuals that can be defined, and that can be differentiated from other groups, and! that should represent a unity in nature).
By just taking this definition, taxonomy is a science, if science is reduced to the basis of testing hypotheses.
Let's take a bunch of individuals (scientifically spoken "random samples") and test whether one can find characters that unify some of those individuals and separates them from other individuals. Null hypothesis would be: "no, there are no characters that differentiate the groups". This null hypothesis can be accepted or rejected. Technically spoken, one can and actually should use statistical methods to test a chosen (set of) character(s) does separate those groups. Usually, it is not done that way and the results are accepted because of the merit of the taxonomist ("expertise"). In case of a boolean characters (it is there or not, e.g. an apomorphy), statstics appear superfluous, in case of gradual characters (wing length, petals size), statistics are useful and in my opinion it would be very good practice (but very rarely provided).
Nomenclature (the "naming part") comes into play as a set of formal rules how to handle those groups. One names an "individual" (i.e. holotype) and "asks" whether another just found individual from the field, another herbarium collection or another named individual (i.e. another taxon) has characters to differentiate the indivual in question from already named individuals (that represent a taxon) or not. This is also scientific. E.g., a taxonomist reviewed a group of taxa and found that there is a group of individuals named "A", and that they share a specific character (apomorphy) or set of characters. Null hypothesis here: my individual in question shares those character(s). Possible outsomes: Yes, they do (my individual is part of taxon "A"), no they don't (it is something different or new), and in case of a set of characters: partly. In case of "partly", one might re-examine whether the formerly defined set of characters really defines a unity in nature.
In conclusion, yes, taxonomy is a science.
Things just became more complicated because the "unity in nature" can be interpreted differently. Traditionally, it was just by morphology alone (morphospecies/phenetics) or by containing all offspring of a common ancestor (cladistic approach) and so on. Nevertheless, if one can define a group in itself and differentiate it from others (whether by morphology, chromosome counts and/or DNA sequences or whatever), one can name taxa and test hypothesis of belonging of individuals to that taxon.
Yes taxonomy is a discipline of science, it a a branch of Systematics. Systematics consist of three branches: Taxonomy, Classification, and Phylogeny. Taxonomy's methodology is complex and outline, in part, in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
Of course an interesting question, in particular from the poont of view of the interface scientiists / society.
On the point (i) 'in taxonomy, there exists a precise (scientific) method to identify a species...' I guess that the problem is definition, as far as there is not a single definition for 'species', and some of the the most recent definitions (concepts) depart from the popular (non strictly scientific) concept of 'species', which is at a mid way between the phenetic and the biological species concepts.
and on the question (ii): 'is taxonomy an exact science?' There is little I can say, Biology as a whole is not an exact science (those were chemistry, physics and maths at least in the old times)
[[On somewhat different grounds, I am not so happy about Rafael's statement that 'Systematics consist of three branches: Taxonomy, Classification and phylogeny'. I would say instead that Taxonomy deals with biological classification (classifying has two complementary interpretations, making groups, and placing into formerly designed groups). Phylogenetic reconstruction is also a way of classification (constructing hyerarchical excluding classifications). On the other hand Nomenclature is evidently not science, basically bureaucracy (name management), though important!]]
Taxonomy deals with nomenclature, names
Classification is the arrangements of clades on hierarchical manner,
Phylogeny is interested in assessing and discovering evolutionary, genealogical, relationships.
Of course most of aim for Classification to reflect our understanding of Phylogeny
I think taxonomy is the science which deals with taxa in a wide sense, not just nomenclature and names, but also with descriptions and definitions.
I've addressed this issue in my article "A Unified Concept of Species and Its Consequences for the Future of Taxonomy" (Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences Volume 56, Supplement I, No. 18, pp. 196–215): "
The unified concept of species and the shift in the conceptualization of the species category that it represents bear on the history and the future of taxonomy. In one sense, taxonomy is among the oldest scientific disciplines. That is, taxonomy was among the earliest branches of human knowledge to adopt explicit methods — to be approached systematically. In another sense, however, taxonomy has only recently become a science. Although the discipline of taxonomy has existed for a very long time, it has only recently experienced a shift from being primarily concerned with the utilitarian exercise of classifying to being primarily concerned with the scientific endeavor of testing hypotheses. Historically, taxonomists have been concerned with classifying organisms into groups based on shared traits, and then further classifying those groups into the categories of the taxonomic hierarchy, from kingdom to species. In contrast, modern systematic biologists, despite the fact that they still use data taking the same basic form of similarities and differences among organisms, are increasingly devoting their efforts to testing hypotheses about lineage boundaries and phylogenetic relationships. An important manifestation of this shift is the increasing realization that the categories of greatest importance to taxonomists are not kingdom, phylum/division, class, order, family, genus, and species (the last term being used here in the older sense of a taxonomic rank) — the important categories are clade and species (the second term now used in the newer sense of a category of biological organization). To the extent that the unified species concept represents the more complete acceptance of this newer view of species, it represents a central component in the future of taxonomy."
Why this question?
In good old days genius like Linnaeus evolved this methodology based on morphological characteristics. All morphological characteristics are expressions of genes and now we have the so called "Scientific proof ' for this from physics, chemistry etc. But always remember that genes are chemical entities subject to variation as they are living and hence expressions in morphological characters also varies.
In this background, taxonomists put some logistic conclusion into the science behind this and try to group biotic entities. Since there is variation, replication of experiment as in case of nonliving things, always may not be possible but the scientific base of the study cannot be ignored any way. Surely taxonomy is is a synthesized science and sometimes become not perfect because the mutation and variation happens in the living system.
Why do taxonomists, in particular, always have to justify themselves? Doesn't EVERYBODY, i.e., all other "good" scientists, and the rest of the world, using any other name for any other "rose", rely on their work !? (as long as it smells that sweet!?) So what taxonomists do is not science, or what? … or doesn't follow whatever methods, or what? We should stop questioning the validity of taxonomic work that attempts to bring order into the seeming chaos out there. We're ALL scientists! EVERYBODY relies on what taxonomists are doing and it should be greatly appreciated and acknowledged! Are taxonomists just counting marbles? Let's stop this endless justification debate that only harms our cause, and be positive about what we do … for SCIENCE's sake! … so, that is what Mohanan, Sir, meant by: Why this question? That is: it was not necessary to ask THAT question!
Whether you call it science or not, it is vitally necessary. I am an ecologist/biogeographer. I could do nothing if I could not identify specimens. Who do I turn to? Taxonomists past and present! But earlier posts to this question make it clear that it is science (if that mattered). Apart from other, political, pressures from other parts of the community of biologists, there is the mistaken assumption that everything has been described, and is "old hat". even if it were true (which it is not) the business of identifying correctly requires expertise that is tough to acquire.
Although I do get fed up with the occasional spats over issues of nomenclature, which seem to be a legalistic rather than a scientific concern, we need the expertise. One report I saw said that in the UK there were only two people who got reliably identify any species in a group ( I think of lichens, but it may not be these) and both were over 80.
HELP!
Sir, I respect and appreciate taxonomy and taxonomists very much. There is a gap between taxonomy and conservation which is not benefiting biodiversity. Colin has mentioned one relevant aspect:
"If only non-specialists would actually realize that species are real. This becomes very important in conservation planning: unfortunately, most IUCN conservation planners are stuck in the old assumption that species are a matter of "enough difference".
We work for the benefit of the species or science? I think should be for both and that gap could become narrower if taxonomists and conservationists know better each other work.
Consider this: a politician once told me "In order for me to protect your plant/animal…" (whatever) "… I need its name, a nice name, that sticks", for conservation purposes you don't have to get hung up so much about ranks, "species", or whatever, … what counts in conservation is that you make politicians appreciate the alleged importance of that creature. That's, for instance, why I spent so much time and effort collecting vernacular names, because without them, the people who will need to be convinced about the "value" of a to-be-protected organism, will simply ask "who?". You guys in conservation need to do a bit more PR, taxonomist will take care of the ranking, don't worry (you can help them along, though! ;-)!
If I meet someone the first time, I introduce myself by NAME: "I'm TED". Any creature you want to be "recognized", will need a name… species or …. not!
Yes, Ted, right! But.... before a beast have a name it needs to have been studied, and in many cases, it's a difficult and specialized study because Nature is complex. Another solution would be to destruct Nature, as many want to do but...
Thank you Theodor, Agree! As a matter of facts I have dealt with Indonesian politicians for over ten years. My experience in PR is adequate, not so in Taxonomy, though I view some possibility to nearing them for biodiversity conservation.
( Viceversa, I don't see many chances with politicians...;-)!
Taxonomy is a science, no question. Carl von Linné introduced it in order to remove the babylonian confusion between natural researchers in the different countries. The basis was the cognition, that there are species, a collective which makes identic and exclusive reproduction. This collectives should get one worldwide name in order to recognise it and to have a basis for correspondance with other scientists.
Today Taxonomy has become more and more difficult, because knowledge increased and taxonomy was mixed up with other scientific sections, especially Phylogeny. Primarily, the binary code of a species as a basic for correspondence needed no phylogenic valid.
Today we change the binary name of a species, when there are new findings in Phylogeny, the first scientist changes it in one direction, the next in the other, so we have a new babylonian confusion between the scientists. This is not that, what Carl von Linné intended to create.
On the other hand, the term species is not as clear as we all would like that. Some species are in a developing stage, there are no fixed limits between species like in orchids. Some species mix up in a natural way and we can not find the classical reproduction schemes, for example the frogs Rana...We know asexual reproduction mechanisms and so on...and all this is not fixed, it is changing!
Today "species" is not enough specific, we need other terms to correspond in the science of today.
So in a short, Taxonomy is a very basic science in our time of worldwide adhered research.
Best regards,
Rudolf Ritt
A bit presumptuous to characterize one's own species concept as so novel, and to presume that it will be a central component in the future of taxonomy, and to claim such special insight into what is real, new, and important, isn't it? Ranks are useful for communication and for conveying mutual exclusivity of taxa and have long served that purpose within an established cladistic system.
Dear John Ascher, Just read your answer. I don't see much relation to my initial question that arise after reading the following papers:
1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270053988_Describing_a_New_Species
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9052386_The_relationships_between_taxonomy_and_conservation_biology_in_the_century_of_extinctions
3.https://www.academia.edu/7989681/How_Taxonomists_Can_Bridge_the_Gap_Between_Taxonomy_and_Conservation_Science
Article The relationship between taxonomy and conservation biology i...
Article Describing a New Species
Hi,
I believe that the response of Lucas Teixeira includes the pivotal question here: SPECIES ARE HYPOTHESIS, then you can study it applying the scientific method.
This is also a nice way to respond succinctly to those who still question if a taxonomist is really a scientist ;)
Sincerely appreciate all the scientist who shared very valuable and highly informative comments and knowledge.
May I add few of my thoughts in this regard:
Once i read an article on the extincting role of plant taxonomist in one of the Australian newspapers(pardon me i don't remember either the name of the daily or the exact title of the article).
Few years ago i used to tell my students that a day will come when we to will be able to identify any organism with a bit of sterile tissue or cells using a handheld digital instrument could be called as GTI. (=Global Taxonomic Identifier).
I think still the exploration for new living entities/strains/varieties /species of organisms will remain unfinished.
Is the act of gathering knowledge about a living entity and organizing this in a verifiable and systematic manner is not science?
In fact the ability to distinguish things/identify is the first knowledge or skill any one acquires as one begins to come into existence,with out even being aware of it!
May I add a quotation by Richard E. Blackwelde
"The study of taxonomy in its broadest sense is probably the oldest branch of biology or natural history as well as the basis for all the other branches, since the first step in obtaining any knowledge of things about us is to discriminate between them and to learn recognize them".
Richard E. Blackwelder, Some Aspects of Modern Taxonomy', Journal of the New York Entomological Society (Sep 1940), 48, No. 3, 245.
Thanks Nahuel, in short this is my conclusion too. I had and have no doubt that a taxonomist is a scientist and Taxonomy is science. I wished to have a clearer idea if in Taxonomy there is an exact methodology, or not. Thanks to all the constructive answers I have a very much better view on this extremely interesting subject. Thank you all for your time.
It seems that we agree that nowadays the taxonomists are getting (or better, recovering) more prescence in the main scenario of the science. Maybe the next interesting step to do would be going back to the primal question (that for some reason went out of fashion the last decade): What a species is?
;)
We shouldn't divide between conservationists and taxonomists! More often than not they are the SAME people, i.e., if the former is a trained biologist (which may, in fact, be the problem at the core of this discussion here)!
Taxonomists attempt to determine differences between organisms and try to arrange them to reflect evolutionary relationships.
Conservationists apply taxonomic knowledge towards their means.
If a "conservationist", or better, say, a biologist working in conservation, is convinced that a particular population deserves protection (sensu conservation), you can try to accumulate enough anatomical, morphological, behavioral, biochemical, phylogenetic and other evidence of "difference" (certainly by applying the "scientific method") to give the population "rank and status" (sensu taxonomy), ... and even it's own nice common name, to improve its chance of being "recognized" by decision-makers and the public!
Ranking can be pretty subjective though, there are many different species concepts and they can be pretty vague and controversial, and there are "lumpers" and "splitters", and thus ranking often becomes a matter of interpretation, even attitude and particular motivation. So, taxonomists seem to be particularly "divided" at times ... but isn't all that "normal" and at the core of any scientific dispute ?!
The ultimate goal of taxonomists is to understand the evolutionary relationships among organisms and to reflect these through according evidence-based phylogenies.
Possibly, conservationists need taxonomists to determine conservation priority programmes. One example, amongst many, the subspecies Northern White rhino or Nile rhino (Cerathoterium c. cottoni), recently assigned species status(Cerathoterium cottoni) is now attracting more conservation efforts than ever before as subspecies. Conservationists should apply taxonomy towards their means hence, the better taxonomists can define taxon position, the more conservation priorities can be identified. Taxonomists, on the other hand, need biologists to gather as many data as possible to calibrate classification.
That's a nice example, Francesco ... and that's a good opportunity to get back to an earlier troublesome statement in this thread by Colin, who said:
"If only non-specialists would actually realize that species are real. This becomes very important in conservation planning: unfortunately, most IUCN conservation planners are stuck in the old assumption that species are a matter of "enough difference".
As correctly elaborated by others here, species are HYPOTHESES, that get tested over time and serve our purpose of classification etc. The only thing that is "real" about them are the features that we ascribe to them that we deem important enough to serve as a means of distinction.... apomorphic, plesiomorphic, unique or not!
Species are NOT "real", just somehow defined groups of individuals that share whatever characteristics that we ascribe to them. The only thing that is "real" is the individual.... however useful our species concepts may eventually be!
Excellent, Theodor. And now that it has been correctly established and repeatedly confirmed that taxonomy is about formulating hypotheses (meaning not only species but taxa at other ranks as well) and testing these hypotheses by means of methods recognised to be objective and leading to reproducible results, let me add the word that many may have had secretly in mind but did not dare use.
Formulating good hypotheses, those most likely to be supported by both testing and perceived usefulness -- well, that's more than science, it is an art. And taxonomists, irrespective of prevailing fashion (and setting aside their intrinsic modesty), should not be shy in recognising that fact.
If, in your opinion, species are not real, how can you formulate and test hypotheses about them? Could you test "hypothesis" that dragons have wings???
Sorry, one more remark. I do not wish to say about physics or chemistry, though I think it refers to them (perhaps in somewhat different proportions) as well, but in biology any serious science must be combined with some "art" - otherwise it is but a formal game on the Kornél Lánczos's theme ["interesting is not what the world is like, but what it should be like"; please don't misunderstand me: I am not criticizing Lánczos - he was a mathematician, not a scientist!]. If we wish to know what the world is really like, we always must make plenty of subjective decisions in the interpretation of the results of our observations or experiments: even if one always adheres to "rigorous" computerized procedures, his/her taxon and character sampling for phylogenetic reconstruction, weighting (or "not weighting", i.e. weighting all transformations equally) &c. is always largely subjective, as is the decision which level of significance is considered "significant", the choice between morphological and molecular data, cladistic or synthetic classification, "lumping" or "splitting" &c. All such decisions (not only in systematics!) are more or less subjective, i.e. are based on "art"! Of course, art also can be good or wrong (in case of science: bring us closer to or farther from "what the world is really like"), and the evaluation of whether in particular case it is good or wrong is also... "art" - but we have no choice (except for that between partly "artistic" and fully artificial...), we must accept this fact: this is also an aspect of the world as it is really like!
All the best!
Roman
O.k., then, let's take Roman's "winged dragon" … there is ONE individual (with accession number) deposited in a museum. Taxonomists study it and think it could be "real", but it's the only specimen ever found. Nobody would publish it. So virtually it is not "real" even though it seems to be, and would never be recognized as anything but an awkward "individual" until someone found more of its "kind". It thus didn't become a species (nor anything else other than WHAT IT IS, an individual, a "real" one) … no "hypothesis" anywhere!
Taxonomists work with individuals (using "scientific methods"), … grouping, categorization, and ranking is mere "construction"!
Sorry, Theodore, do you really think that "real" is only what we have recognized and published? Do you really think that , e.g., giraffe, kangaroo or jaguar did not exist (=were not "real") until some taxonomist received a specimen (or, according to your requirement, several specimens), described them and published the description??? If so, you should also accept the reverse: the descriptions of dragons, phoenix-birds, or sea-bishops have been made and published, so all these creatures are real??? As to me (and to most taxonomists) your "ONE individual (with accession number) deposited in a museum" either is or is not a representative of separate, real, species - whether this species is or is not known to taxonomists, whether more specimens have been (or will ever be) collected and recognized, .&c., is absolutely irrelevant to its existence (=being "real"), as mammoths, dinosaurs or trilobites were "real" long before any taxonomist become sufficiently "real" to describe them. Of course individuals are real, but not only individuals: reality has many "layers"!
Dear Roman, we are not talking this on philosophical grounds, but on a practical basis, by my impression … and the question was whether species are real … "real" in what sense !? ... was the issue !
And, YES, giraffe, kangaroo etc. virtually did not exist to SCIENCE (and particularly not to CONSERVATION) until someone had named them !!!
To me, just your arguments are - as one of my German friends used to say - eine riesige Philosophie! We should not "talk on philosophical grounds" but we should use biological scientific "language", and just to science of biology species do exist no less than individuals do! I - as a biologist - am not particularly interested whether kangaroo did or did not existed "virtually", but really it obviously did (unless we accept the extreme creationist view that it has been specially created by God in XVIII century to give the taxonomist chance to name it...).
Sorry, Colin, disagree, … species are human constructs, as you should know. With over eight current species concepts and definitions, go and choose the one you like best for your field and place a bell curve over them … common! The only thing we work with as biologists are individuals … we study them, describe them, compare them, group them according to our definitions … !
Look at Francesco's rhino example and you will see that it is a matter of "taste" whether you keep a population at subspecies (or whatever) level, or elevate it to species level … makes heck of a difference for conservation, though!
First, there is only one currently widely accepted species concept: Simpson's "evolutionarily independent lineage" (Hołyński 1992, de Queiroz 1998), there are only several criteria (reproductive isolation, diagnostic difference, &c.) allowing to test whether the particular [group of] populatiions fits the concept or not. These criteria (differently applicable in different situations (e.g. sympatry vs. allopatry) are unfortunately often erroneously termed "species concepts" (this is the source of confusion and discussions based on misunderstanding like this), but in fact their relation to the real concept is like the diagnosis (set of evidence on which a taxonomist based his/her decision to "formally" accept the separateness of a taxon) to the convenient (often the least important but easy to check) "key character".
Second, of course, if we accept evolution, we must expect some intermediate situations when, indeed, it is a matter of largely subjective evaluation whether the [group of] populations in question should already be considered a separate lineage or has not yet evolved so far, but this fact has nothing to do with its "real existence".
OK, Roman, we're getting there, we're really not that far apart, but you still don't seem to get what I'm trying to say, it's easier than you probably thought.
Let me use a botanical example: take this sprawling perennial herbaceous plant (one individual). I divide it and get two genetically identical separate plants, real physical plants, two verifiably existent individuals ... I work on them, describe them, ... but as soon as I group them, I am starting to construct ... so what I'm saying is that starting from the smallest grouping (e.g., say parents, mom and dad, but parents could be two moms these days, too, depends on how you define parents ... or family ... population, subspecies, species, genus ..) I am "constructing" whatever seemingly reasonable, apparent, or useful taxa based on my chosen criteria and definitions. In THAT sense SPECIES are NOT real ! The only part in this world of taxonomy that is "real" (sensu, base units of our endeavor) is the INDIVIDUAL ! That's all ! ... or actually not:
And, of course, I am implementing that any species definition is arbitrary, as it solely depends on the criteria that you chose for assigning any individual to that constructed rank, a) those criteria can be changed or adapted to your needs, and b) as you seem to have acknowledged, there is leeway for interpretation, maybe even room for a personal flavour or political interest, as in the case of conservation (that we are actually focussing on here) for deciding at which level or rank of categorization you want those individuals to be.
Apply that to Francesco's endangered rhinos and maybe, I hope, you could agree that Colin's statement was WRONG?
Yes, agree, Colin, they are evolutionary lineages, of course! ... but whether that "intermediate" was in a process of ... or whether I can try to help that along with my different weighting of the available data, was the other point that I wanted to make…. for the sake of … rhinos!
* "real" comes from Latin res, for THING. A "thing" is a physical entity. Species are not (neither is Zeus). Museum drawers are filled with "individuals" (or parts thereof). They ARE real! And they are the physical entities that taxonomists work with. Plus: a good fraction of those specimens in the drawers that are labelled as species, are probably NOT ... there's still a lot to do! ... and to think about! Words, for instance!
Could we than say: Conservationists, to save species ("unreal"), have to work primarily on its individuals ("real"), thus preserving each individual and increase their number we conserve a species. More individuals produced, more chances of saving the species raise. On the opposite, to save species loosing individuals, it is destined to be a failure. E.g. to protect a territory in which individuals continue to dwindle.
I think we have become superfluously implicated in the practical questions of conservational policies, which have nothing to do with scientific, taxonomic problems! Practice must be arranged according to scientific knowledge, rather than scientific facts, definitions, or terminology being cut out to the convenience of policy-makers!
Roman, nobody ever disputed facts here! The dispute is about the use of WORDS … and definitions, of course!
Please let me try to clarify: of course, I am not saying that kangaroos did not exist (at least not prior to the point from which we start CALLING them kangaroos and from where they branched off from their non-kanagroo ancestor; we both have a good understanding of evolution and that should not be the issue. But there IS no label "kangaroo" on that animal! We assign names).
But what I am saying is that that particular "species" of kangaroo entered into our world of biological taxonomy and science only at the point where someone had collected it, realizing its uniqueness and difference from others, naming it a "species" or whatever, and publishing it (don't we all want to be the 'first' to 'discover' an animal/plant and give it OUR name, well I prefer meaningful Latin names) … we are still talking about biological taxonomy and systematics, right!
And that gets me to WORDS! The word 'real' is derived from 'res' (Latin) … thing (a physical entity) ! Species are NOT things! They are NOT physical entities! This is language, and NOT philosophy … and that is where I got pretty angry! We shouldn't call species real, because it's misunderstandable and not true if you take the basic meaning of the word 'real', which is what I grew up to perceive it as. And we shouldn't be as dogmatic as to say "If people only realized that species are real", that also made me angry! I don't want to be a preacher for SPECIES! I hope we share the same 'philosophy', maybe not, but if meanings of words are in the way, then let's try to solve that by trying to speak the same language at least, and that can be done by referring to DEFINITIONS … in dictionaries ! I love dictionaries, that's why I became a lexicographer!
Taxonomy in biology, to me, is the construction (or reconstruction) of evolutionary relationships between individuals that we group into various units at various levels - arranging organisms according to "kin". To do so, we study individual specimens that we collect in museums.
We probably don't have any difference in views, but we are using WORDS differently, and that's why there is Babylonian misunderstanding!
(PS: and I don't think you are the person to close this discussion! Let the person who started the thread have that privilege!)
Dear Francesco,
... found the citation from Kunz that pertains precisely to your question (will send the book to you by separate mail)
Kunz W (2012) Do Species Exist? Wiley/VCH, Weinheim/New York, pp 30–31
2.10
The Impact of the Species Concept on Nature Conservation and the Allocation of Tax Money
The protection of species is an important task undertaken by nature conservation associations, but what species should be protected if there is no consistent opinion regarding what a species actually is? Should increased protection efforts and larger financial sums only then be employed if 'real' species are endangered with respect to their existence, or should equal-ranking efforts be undertaken if they 'only' involve the conservation of geographical races? This question is contentious (Moritz, 994; Crandall et al., 2000; Allendorf and Luikart, 2006).
The 'Red Lists' of threatened animal and plant species generally only refer to species. Races are left high and dry, and it is considerably more difficult to receive tax money for the preservation of races than for the preservation of species. For example, the newly discovered Grey-Shanked Douc Langur (Pygathrix cinereus) in Vietnam first had to be assigned species status before funds for its preservation were provided (Jörg Adler, director of the zoo in Münster, Germany, personal communication). The status of a geographical race would not have sufficed. Typically, the sought-after label of a 'real' species is awarded on the basis of DNA analysis. This is questionable because it is controversial whether this is a reasonable and sufficient criterion to determine the status of a species (Chapter 4).
The Red Wolf (Canis rufus), which is extremely endangered regarding its continued existence, is a rare inhabitant of North America. The Red Wolf was originally widely distributed in the southeast United States, but only a few remain today in Texas and Louisiana. After the American 'Endangered Species Act'. which is a law addressing species protection, was brought into effect in 1973, a debate arose about whether the RedWolf was eligible for protection measures (Roy et al., 1994). Because of its state of endangerment, there should have been no debate whatsoever regarding granting the Red Wolf the highest priority for protection.
However, DNA analyses showed that Red Wolf DNA contains the genetic material of both wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans). This resulted in a disagreement about whether the Red Wolf is actually an autonomous species. It was discussed whether the Red Wolf was instead a hybrid between wolves and coyotes (Chapter 6). If this suspicion were confirmed, would this justify canceling the efforts to protect and propagate the Red Wolf? Although it is very rare among animals, it has to be considered that a hybrid between two species can, in principle, be the origin of a new, third species (Chapter 6).
These examples sound a bit absurd. Environmental protectionists would be well advised to more strongly embrace the idea that the protection of biological diversity is different from the 'protection of species' (Moritz, 1994 6058; Crandall et al., 2000; Allendorf and Luikart, 2006). The Red Lists should be more than species lists. Multiplicity in nature has little to do with the species concept. Each of the present Red Lists is a document for the fact that intraspecific variability is carelessly neglected (Chapter 5).
The ethical value of preservation of biodiversity is not decreased by it becoming apparent that protective measures to benefit an endangered population are 'only' benefiting an endangered subspecies instead of a true species. This realization has begun to prevail, such as in the fight for the preservation of rare races of domestic animals as well as endangered crop varieties. Here, the preservation of biological plurality has long since been concerned with a variety of forms and not with species.
The main problem is that evolution is working on populations (at most varieties or subspecies) in order to become (maybe) in the future... species. But conservation often work only on species.
If conservationnists want to work on conserving evolutionary processes, they have to change their uses... and work directly on populations !
Although science is not defined by specific ("scientific") methods it applies, one of its main characteristics is certainly the usage of possibly adequate language. So, we should use the word "real" in its normal, biologically relevant sense: existing, amenable to study, to verification of its characteristics. In this sense species evidently do exist - otherwise how could we observe (and, for that matter, e.g. protect) them? Should we protect - according to Theodor the only "real" - individuals irrespective of whether the particular individual is a condor or mosquito? why not?: if species are not really existing (and other taxonomic categories the less so), what is the difference??? Or, if the real existence of species depends upon our decision to name them, perhaps we can name flying animals as one species, green ones as another, and those covered with scales as yet another? We cannot do this? - of course, but why if not just because species are real, independently from our perception existing entities, and therefore - unlike the case of unicorns, dragons or ghosts - their limits and characteristics may be only studied, not attributed at will!
On the other hand, as regards conservation priorities, the species vs. subspecies question must be first solved by impartial scientific study, and only then the results can (though, in my opinion, even then should not) be taken into consideration in conservational policies: tailoring scientific definitions and terminology to the (real or imagined) needs of practical applications must lead to nonsenses!
Dear Francesco,
Practically speaking, it is advisable to specify the species concept that you intend to use in your rhino paper. The word "species" alone is not sufficient to confer the intended meaning, its use requires a qualifying attribute (morphospecies, phylospecies, cryptic species etc.). Similar applies if you were to be arguing on the genus level. You would do this in the Introduction (and Discussion). This way you avoid misunderstandings and you clarify your point from the very start. Effective communication starts from clear definitions of the WORDS we use.
But, categorization and definition problems are not restricted to taxonomy. Complex issues require elaborate use of language. Thus, the word "species" does not suffice to confer an intended complex meaning, and that is where attributes are needed and can help ... as in all contextual communication.
"One of the most intractable definitions in biology is that of the species. Species may be defined in different ways and using different criteria, and the species “concept” used may depend on the particular group studied or on a particular goal. However, it is important to precisely define the basis or concept of a species and infraspecies in any systematic or taxonomic work ... " as quoted from Michael Simpson, renowned botanist of San Diego State University, and author of the prominent textbook "Plant Systematics, 2nd edn." at the beginning of Chap. 19 on "Species and Conservation in Plant Systematcs" (20 pages!)
The chapter includes a section on "CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AND THE GOALS OF SYSTEMATICS", which I find very useful in the context of this discussion.
* Simpson M (2009) "Plant Systematics", 2nd edn. Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam/San Diego, CA, Chap. 19: "Species and Conservation in Plant Systematcs" (attached)
I consider taxonomy to be a method, or a heuristic instrument, which can be used for science as well as for pseudoscience and for many other ways of acquiring and structuring knowledge about the world.
Magnus has a point: People talk about the taxonomy of all sorts of things, including, for example "the taxonomy of knowledge".
I don't think that it is "a science", I think it is a set of specialized methods for organizing knowledge and understanding relationships that are developed and used within the biological science. It is not the word "taxonomy" I think we disagree about the meaning of, but rather the word "science".
So, what is your concept of "science" if not the activity aiming at understanding the world phenomena (e.g. the structure of biodiversity)?
That is basically my concept, to try to understand the relationships between the worlds phenomena through observation and interpretation/analysis. Taxonomy is however just a method for analyzing and interpreting phenomena - and the method is used in science (and in other endeavors of acquiring and organizing knowledge). I think the word "science" is used by some scientists about any set of sufficiently specialized methods. But I consider that a problematic use of the word, because such methods can be used in both scientific and non-scientific ways.
You are right in what you say above that "as long as taxonomic statements are scientific hypothesis (i.e. that can be falsified) then taxonomy is scientific". So when you say that you also admit the possibility of non-scientific uses of taxonomy. For example one way of doing taxonomy is evolutionary (attempting to discover historical relations between organisms) another could be simply classificatory (putting similar looking organisms under similar labels). Both ways are taxonomical, but one produces knowledge about history the other about the present. They have different epistemological statuses and the different criteria of falsifiability.
Dear Francesco Nardelli ,
"Taxonomy has a unique position in Biology. It is both the 'QUEEN & SERVANT' of biological Sciences (Prof. V V Sivarajan). 'Queen' in the sense, it is ultimate and all other fields depend on this system of classification. 'Servant' in the sense this provides basic information in identity for the researches and all other related works"
"They have different epistemological statuses and the different criteria of falsifiability." Yes, but both are scientific hypotheses: one about the process, another about the results - the two aspects of any natural phenomenon! You perhaps could argue that classification based on similarity is not verifiable (or, if you prefer, falsifiable), but this is not true: it is falsifiable by taking more characters into consideration (cetaceans were for long considered as fishes, but already Linnaeus found such classification questionable and it was rejected - just on grounds of better understanding of similarity - long before Darwin, i.e. before any historical arguments cold have been set forth).
It is entirely possible to make taxonomies that are not falsifiable. And people frequently do. Hence Taxonomy is not itself "scientific", but it can be when it is used in a way that is compatible with science.
"Taxonomy is not itself "scientific", but it can be when it is used in a way that is compatible with science" - and this is just the case of biological taxonomy - that the word "taxonomy" is sometimes misused to describe different concepts is another, here totally irrelevant question ("ecology" has been also widely used in the sense having little to do with the respective branch of biology, like many other terms used in various meanings)!
That is a no true scotsman fallacy. You are just defining true taxonomy to be only the scientific use of taxonomy in current biology. Taxonomy is just any hierarchical classification scheme, and taxonomical systems existed thousands of years before biology did. You cant have language without taxonomy. You cant have logic with out taxonomy. The argument here then is that taxonomy is a science because taxonomy has been defined a priori to only include specific scientific uses of taxonomy. Circular reasoning.
Not circular reasoning, but simply proper - in the given context - usage of the word that may (like many others) be used in more than one meaning in other contexts. If you ask for salt at dinner and receive e.g. sublimate you probably will not be satisfied with the explanation that it is also a salt in chemical classification; for an astrophysicist "metal" is any element except hydrogen and helium, but if you say in any other context that sulphur or chlorine are metals you would be ridiculed; you will not (I hope...) deny a zoologist's opinion that mouse is a mammal even though in writing this I use a "mouse" which certainly does not belong to the class Mammalia; &c. Many words are used in widely different meanings in different contexts, and it makes no sense (would make any reasonable discussion impossible) to use them in a sense not appropriate for a given context. Francesco's initial question concerned evidently biological taxonomy, rather than typology of cars, sexual abnormalities, ghosts &c. ("taxonomies" in your - if I understand you well - sense), and as a branch of biology taxonomy is a science. We must know what are we speaking about, and use the terms accordingly!
I would recommend you this article about the scientific value of taxonomy:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51747769_The_taxonomist__an_endangered_race_A_practical_proposal_for_its_survival
Article The taxonomist - an endangered race. A practical proposal fo...
Dear Colin,
Thank you for the concise, very clear explanation.
Francesco
How to determine what are the key traits in taxonomy? One one hand, all living beings share carbon or other basic atome structures versus on the other hand, each individual living being is unique in physical expression. And there are the traits in between that are shared by some, not by others....
Taxonomists and systematists look for synapomorphies or shared-derived characters. These attributes (characters) are those that organisms share by common descent from a single ancestor rather than share by independent convergence. Bats and birds have wings but the wings are not shared and derived from a common ancestor. On the other hand, the forelimb itself (that evolves to wings independently in bats and birds) is a synapomorphy shared by all tetrapods. So birds and bats are tetrapods but birds share a common ancestor with dinosaurs and bats are closer to Dimetrodons for example.
Depending on the traits you might get different classifications, e.g. molecular (e.g. mitochondrial versus other) because some traits evolved faster than other traits?
Is taxonomy more than describing patterns?
It is more than describing patterns, because it seeks to interpret them according to a set of principles, and can therefore examine the coherence and consistency of the classification proposed. The interpretations can be refuted, and often are when more/different characters are considered. Given that Classification is "after the event" any particular case is the best match we have just now; with cladistic statistics, we can assign some degree of probability to a particular arrangement.. There are realistically possible discoveries that could disprove a particular classification.
But nomenclature, and the assignment of ranks are determined by convention.
Science also is expected to involve experimentation, e.g. to test hypotheses. What about experimental taxonomy, e.g. to test the biological species concept?
We cannot "test" the terminology: BSC ("Biological Species Concept") is not a hypothesis to be tested whether "true" or "false", it is simply a convention to call "species" those groups of organisms which fulfil the basic requirement of "internal" (within group) lack and "external" presence of reproductive isolation. If you find that some group X does not match this criterion, you did not falsify the BSC but only established that X is not a species in the sense of BSC.
And it is generally inexact to say that : "Science ... is expected to involve experimentation, e.g. to test hypotheses": science is expected to involve experimentation when it is needed, and testing of hypotheses need not always be based on experiment, additional observational data usually (in biology) are more effective and convincing. Especially in taxonomy experiments are rarely appropriate to solve problems, and where they would be informative (e.g. in case of "cryptic species vs. ecological modification") they are often very difficult to perform.
And still more generally: ”A hypothesis is never falsified with any disagreeing fact, but only with another hypothesis matched by more facts” – LORENZ (1988), so e.g. a synthetic ("evolutionary") classification is as "falsifiable" by examination of its basic criteria ("predictive power") as is cladistic one by its own demands (conformability with the "branching pattern" of hypothetical phylogenetic reconstruction).
Can we say that taxonomy is not itself a science, but a practical branch of knowledge that depends on inputs of information from a range of sciences?
The taxonomy of Linnaeus and John Ray used the science of comparative morphology, plus a good deal of intuition and faith that there was an underlying 'plan' to be found.
Anatomy, chemistry, genetics, paleobotany, molecular studies and other scientific evidence have allowed taxonomies to be refined. But the "best' taxonomy for a given group of organisms may still depend on what we want to do with them.
David - chemical elements may be classified acoring to the state of matter (slid/fluid/gas), density, frequency of occurrence, or anything depending "on what we want to do with them", but natural (general purpose, of maximum predictive power) scientific chemical "taxonomy" is one: that proposed by Mendeleyev. And similarly, animals and plants may be classified according to colour, size, preferred food, edibility, or anything else, and all these classifications may - if one wishes - be called :taxonomies",but scientific biological taxonomy, that of maximum predictive power, is one and science of taxonomy is aiming to discover it! Various general approaches (phenetic, cladistic, synthetic) and various criteria ("biological", ""phylogenetical", "morphoevolutionary" &c.) proposed to discriminate between species, subspecies and infrasubspecific varieties, do not lead to different "best" taxonomies, being only different opinions as to which one is the best!
Hello all; Hypothesis testing and repeatability are the heart of science. Taxonomic methods adhere closely to those requirements...it's science. Last time I looked, the observational sciences...taxonomy and astronomy among them...remain in good standing. Happily observational, Jim Des Lauriers
This is a question for the philosophy of science, beginning with the question 'What do we mean by science?' I have endeavoured to provide useful background to this topic at:
https://plantspeopleplanet.org.au/science/
Like taxonomist, Iam think that of curse!!!!!!. The difference that we see the past and with new evidencie think in new clasifications squeme. Allways the taxonomist are needed.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology