Identification and naming, both are equally important. However, the latter is also important. Any kind of experimental work based on misidentified specimen would be disastrous.

I know of a person who came to the Central National Herbarium, Botanical Survey of India to authentication a specimen of Bauhinia said to be of B. variegata, based on which he got his Ph. D. After looking at his speximen the name Bauhinia purpurea L. instantly came out from my mouth because I revised the Indian species of Bauhinia for my Ph. D. Hearing this the person told me Sir, I will never tell anyone that I got my Ph. D. based on a misidentified species. I felt sorry.

I would not like to name a professor from a reputed university who proposed new theories based on cyto-taxonomy. Later it was found that sample identification was not correct.

Here lies the importance of taxonomy!

It is a basic science and will never die.

Also see

https://theconversation.com/botany-may-be-dying-but-somehow-the-plants-survive-62253

Its true that in some of the Indian universities taxonomy is the most neglected subject but I think they have no teachers who can impress the students by teaching in an interesting way.

Dear Dr. Subir, your point may partly be true in some universities. However, major role is, I think, played by those non-taxonomists. I have experienced it personally.

All biological researchers require names of the organisms that they study, hence taxonomy will always be important and should be the head of biological science. Governments all over the world should be instructed in the importance of taxonomy and make more jobs in this area of study!

I do hope there will always be taxonomists!

To categorize something means to discover and define its own uniqueness to the best of our ability. This uniqueness to a taxonomist has its own intrinsic value, but to the rest of the world this uniqueness means economic products, disease curing discoveries, and countless other values.

I think the taxonomy is the head of biological sciences (Zoology and Botany) and it is the tools for knowing of biodiversity of ecosystems;only for it,the taxonomy is so important.

Can I add that taxonomy may also be a means of survival? I'm speaking in terms of my personal experience (botany). Is this too out of context?

Please,Karla,I don´t understand.Why the taxonomy is a means of survival?.

May be out of the box, but if a geneticist and a taxonomists go out into a forest and get lost which one is more likely to survive? What I mean is it's so important to be able to identify organisms, in my experience, plants, as it is a useful skill to use to understand biodiversity and even to avoid running into poison ivy.

In the absence of taxonomic studies it would be like a busy road without traffic control.

I think the person who can instantly identify the plants using macro-morphological features has better chance to survive. One needs to differenciate edible plants from poisonous, should know to avoid plants with irritating hairs and so on.

I've had a chance to study a species of a plant parasitic nematode genus (Meloidogyne) brought from a premium institute by one of my seniors who works in another institute. He asked me to identify the species as he, at that time, didn't have the facilities. He is a taxonomist and he doubted the identity of the species the researchers of the institute claimed. Detailed study revealed that the species was different from the one which the so-called applied/advanced science researchers claimed. The more interesting is that they had already carried out two government-funded projects with the wrong identity of the species. We can understand the level of harm that can be done when these less/least important taxonomists are neglected.

Many students working on biotechnology and pharmacology come to the Central National Herbarium, BSI for authentication of plant sample at the fag end of their Ph D work. We often find that the material whose identity known to a student as X is actually Y. Then the problem starts. That is why we request everyone to get the plant material verified first and then start the work. That is the safest way.

We have also published a paper in Current Science in this regard.

Taxonomy is truly a basic science but its relevance to modern research can never be over-emphasized. Everyday scientists around the globe run into troubles of misidentification of their starting materials (plants, animals etc.). I have seen countless number of papers where plants were published with wrong ID - I corrected one from some researchers on this platform and they were shocked. All they asked is: what then can we do as the paper is already published? It's a pity really!

Taxonomy does not only play roles in biodiversity conservation but also in its utilisation - Food security, Drug discovery, Bioprospecting, Genetic engineering, Crop improvement and so on...

I like the way Dr Subir Bandyopadhyay rightly put it: Research community without the knowledge of taxonomy will be like a "busy road without traffic control"

Dear Felix,

If the authors deposit the voucher specimens based on which they have published then also it would be of great help for revealing the correct identity of a taxon in future but unfortunately that is not always the case. Inspite of stating in the paper that the voucher specimen has been deposited in the herbarium *** it has actually not been deposited.

Dr Subir Bandyopadhyay Sir,

In this case, the authors didn't mention they deposited a voucher specimen (the journal probably didn't ask). I got to find out ID was wrong because they include a photo of the plant in the paper, and this is a plant I have studied extensively. I only advised them to contact the publisher to whether it can still, somehow, be corrected, which I know they wouldn't do.

There should be a call to all publishers to request for voucher numbers of the plant materials and the Herbarium where it was deposited (at least a recognised Institutional Herbarium) before accepting paper for publication.

Good journals do so. They do not publish papers without a ceritificate from the Head of the herbarium where the voucher specimen has been deposited.

The points all of you are making are valid, but you are sort of going around the questions by discussing problems that might be resolved using taxonomy. To me the reason taxonomy is still important is that most people still talk about genera, families, orders, etc., whereas phylogenetic approaches rarely use any term rather than species. I suspect this emerges from the old argument that only species have reality and that all other levels of taxonomy are simply convenient ways of thinking that do not exist in reality.

I can think of two situations in contemporary evolutionary biology where systematics have generated "solutions" that add to, rather than reduce, confusion. These are 1) the taxonomic status of domestic dogs (actually all domestic animals), where the apparent solution has been to make the scientific name Canis lupus familiaris, which fails to acknowledge the polyphyletic nature of this group, and 2) sticklebacks (Gasterosteus) where many lakes along the Pacific coast of North America each contain two "species", i.e. benthic and limnetic ecotypes. The issue is that no one ever provides taxonomic names for these species because in each lake the two forms arise independently of other such forms in other lakes, and to provide names for each benthic or limnetic form would require hundreds if not thousands of names.

I suspect that similar problems arise with the harpacticoid Copepod Tigriopus, which has genetically distinct forms in each small upper tidepool all along the western coast of the US because of founder effects and genetic drift. All of these situations allow geneticists to present evidence of a multitude of species, none of which has a scientific name, according to taxonomy.

Ok Raymond Pierotti if we need thousands of more names, lets employ thousands of more taxonomists!!. The money is there! When I think of the billions of dollars spent on crap sport or the money given to movie stars to enhance the lives of numerous temporary human parasites when the planet is dying environmentally and there are no jobs for taxonomists, makes my blood boil!

I have pasted below part of a mail from a world renowned plant taxonomist [name not disclosed].

In August 2018, I attended a talk by Prof. Richard Losick (Bio-Chemistry (formerly Biology), Harvard). He gave a talk on 10 Nobel Laureates, who were/are associated with Harvard’s Bio-Lab bldg. (once belonged to Biology; now part of Biology + Bio-Chemistry).

Richard’s talk was published in Harvard Gazette online newspaper.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/09/the-phenomenon-of-the-third-floor-nobel-laureates/

Article on Richard’s Talk: “In real estate, they say the key is location, location, location.

At Harvard, the same could perhaps be said of the Nobel prize. A single floor in a single building housed the research laboratories of three Nobel laureates. Six more were trained there, going on to receive the coveted honour after leaving Harvard. A 10th researcher followed the same path, although he was on the floor above.”

The talk included about: Dr. James D. Watson, one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA, who was awarded the prize in medicine or physiology in 1962.

Of course, in Harvard, it is an open secret that Dr. Watson did NOT respect his classical biologist colleagues, such as ecologists and taxonomists. He categorized them as “Stamp Collectors”. It did NOT matter to him how famous they were (e.g., Prof. Edward Wilson).

Once Dr. Watson made a remark that ecologists and taxonomists are needed in Biology. I was surprised to read his remark, but when I read further, I was dismayed. Dr. Watson mentioned that everyone need not to be academically brilliant (such as ecologists and taxonomists).

Because of Dr. Watson’s open and direct disrespect for ecologists and taxonomists, the latter were critical of his attitude.

Two stories below, contrasting Dr. Watson’s attitude.

+++++++++++++++++++

Origin of Life Talk

Almost all of us have taught or learned in classes about the “Origin of Life”. You may also remember about Miller-Urey’s classical experiment.

In September 2018, Prof. Jack William Szostak (Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School), a Nobel Laureate, gave a talk on "Surprises and puzzles in the origin of life". It is one of his research projects.

Prof. Jack William Szostak gave a talk for 45 minutes, and there were 50+ questions. He answered every question (including mine about osmotic pressure in a proto-cell with several cell membranes).

Before, during, and after his talk, Prof. Jack William Szostak looked very dignified and treated every student with respect.

I felt that there is a difference between learning information from journals/books vs. listening to scientists who actually do the experiments.

++++++++++++++++++

Dr. Peter Ashton (born 1934) is a retired Harvard professor; well-known for his research in Forest Ecology; a recipient of several prestigious awards.

Peter treats everyone with respect. Occasionally we discuss on plant taxonomy, nomenclature, life’s philosophy, etc.

He retired in 1999, but continues his research to this date (he was here today studying specimens).

For Peter’s retirement, the Harvard Univ. arranged a big party. I attended the party with my *******, who was only ***years old at that time. When Peter saw my *****, he came to her, shook her hand, and mentioned: “I am Honored by your presence”.

After the above event, Peter and my ***** forgot the handshake and the Greeting words, but I remember quite well.

Today, in a casual talk, I mentioned to Peter that he is magnanimous in making “little” people (in age or rank) to feel respected. He told me that the secret is: “feel small” yourself. Then everyone will look Great to you.

Through this posting I want to emphasize that taxonomists are also providing basic contributions to the science and should not underestimated as done by some workers, especially working in the applied fields.

Whatever is good I include them in my studies immediately. For example recent changes in Bauhinia and allied genera based on molecular studies. These studied have improved the classification. Obviously I am thankful to the authors who have done such works.

Have a look on my thoughts that I published in 2015. I think a big problem is that there are only short term projects in taxonomy but too few permanent positions available for taxonomists.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. By the way, I have gone through your publication when it got published. After all, it's such an important publication. It gave the taxonomists some hope. I wish if the government & the funding agencies could understand the need.

Is Taxonomy a science without clear parameters, hence subject to opinions?

It is not that Taxonomy lacks clear parameters, but more a factor of the ascendance of phylogenetic systematics, which argues that it is more accurate from an evolutionary perspective. This argued because taxonomy does not provide specific sequences of which species evolved in which order, but often shows all the species within a genus (or any other combination of taxonomic levels you choose) as if they arose simultaneously, because taxonomy does not assume a temporal, sequential component.

In contrast the cladistic approach, which underpins phylogenetic systematics is set up so that at each branching event, a new "species" appears. Some even argue that both results of a dichotomous branching event represent new forms or "species". By using ancestral (shared) and derived traits systematics assumes that it can determine which form is the ancestor, and which the descendant. This allows us to assign evolutionary sequences within groups of species. Systematics tends not to use terms like genus, and it seriously avoids using terms like family, order, and class.

With Systematics being ascendant in many journals and departments, taxonomy has sort have become the respected elder whom no one really needs to listen to any more, because they cannot employ the latest jargon fluently.

We can not think of doing any experimentation in biology if we don't know about the identity of organism which we are working on. There are cases when people work on molecular aspects of a taxon, publish in high impact factor journal but unable to identify that taxon in the field. Taxonomy is the pillar for all applied sciences related to biology.

I appreciate you posting Jagdeep.

Thank you sir!

I am under the impression that taxonomy is subject to opinions. Please have a look: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_many_of_us_still_think_that_species_are_real

Yes species concept is not strictly on the basis of fixed parameters. Experience of taxonomists also matters. Doctors too vary in their opinion regarding the treatment of a patient though they have the same investigation parameters with them.

I agree with Jagdeep that having names for taxa is fundamental to many aspects of science. At APHIS, my group is responsible for identifying intercepted potential pests and making decisions about what to do about them and the shipments of goods in which they were discovered. Without correct taxonomy, we are in the dark on our decision-making in this economically critical task.

Raymond draws a contrast between taxonomy and phylogenetic systematics that I think makes some overgeneralizations about cladistics. As I understand it, cladistics is about actual taxa that have been characterized by empirical evidence, either as living species or as fossils, whose relationships may be inferred by phylogenetic analysis of a data matrix. We are not interested in hypothetical ancestors, and the internal structure of a cladogram is not intended to represent actual entities. That may not be the case for other kinds of phylogenetic inference, but such claims represent category errors about data-based trees and their evolutionary interpretations.

As an entomologist, I certainly consider higher taxonomic categories such as genera, tribes, families and orders to be significant and "real" (to the extent that the named groups are monophyletic). Since entomology can lay claim to about half of all described taxa, I think that the utility of taxonomy is not going to fade from comparative biology any time soon.

The difference of opinion is an important factor fueling research processes in life sciences. Biologists have generally more differences than scientists doing researces in physical sciences or mathematical science.

I believe that the coming time will be the time of molecular taxonomy. A large number of scientists favour the concept. Most importantly it's role in elucidating evolutionary relationships. From that point of view, it is fine. Otherwise, what is the need of analysing molecular differences between a rose and a lily. They already seems different. Yes, analysing differences between two very closely allied rose varieties or lily varieties seems justified. We can not refuse that the most commonly practised taxonomy even today is still based on gross or fine morphology.

I am not overgeneralizing. All I am pointing out is that Systematics, which is rooted in cladistics tends to downplay the importance of higher taxonomic levels and as such it has displaced classical taxonomy, which was usually conducted by experts with knowledge of all members of a genus or family. Followers of Systematics contend that classical Taxonomy has an arbitrary element to it, which is absent in systematics. This has led to de-emphasis of taxonomy in its classic sense. I agree that taxonomy is important, however it is often treated as as a secondary field, which is primarily of historical importance.

One more point, I am addressing the original question, which was "What Will be the Fate of Taxonomy", which was posed 9 days ago. I am not responding to the special cases and defenses which have been presented. Those are important, but in many cases they do not address the original question.

Oh yes! We are getting diverted from the main question

Well said Dr Raymond! Taxonomy, whether classic or modern, is of course a primary requirement.

Although taxonomists need to get updated with the recent trends of modern molecular techniques, but we cannot totally avoid the importance of classical taxonomy which is based on the morphological characters. And I agree with most of the experts that taxonomy in any form is crucial in all kinds of biological studies.

Around 1960 or so, biologists gave up on the study of morphological characters and turned their attention to the study of internal processes - the result is cladistics. While beneficial, cladistics is not terribly useful to those in dependent fields of study such as ecologists, horticulturalists, and conservationists. Modern taxonomy has a big role to play in providing useful information to those in related fields. Released from the burden of establishing hierarchy, taxonomists can turn their attention back to pure, simple, vegetative morphology. Vegetative morphology is not arbitrary, it has simply been marginalized. That a modern taxonomy is viable and useful is supported by the obvious need for identification tools specifically designed to serve those in related, dependent fields.

I think Susan is correct in her assessment, although in my experience cladistics did attain ascendance until the 1980's.

Thanks Raymond. My point was that the study of internal processes led to the development of claudistics - that it may have taken nearly 20 years to develop and mature is highly likely.

Proper coordination between different field of studies will certainly lead taxonomy to its peak. I always hope for the best.

Thank you all for sharing your experience, giving your valuable ideas and above all, for giving your time to this question which has given me high adrenaline moments and sometimes, harrowing experiences in most of the scientific conferences I have attended so far. The questions I used to face were not from the work I presented but of the field of study - Taxonomy. What is the importance of taxonomy? Why have you chosen to work in a dying field?

I firmly believe that taxonomy is the first step everyone has to take before going towards any other field of study. Having diversified my area of research in Ecology it has become more pertinent.

Basically Taxonomy is very logical and well structured because the Linnean hierarchical structure is intellectually satisfying. Phylogenetic systematics has attained prominence because it is much easier to use when looking at DNA sequence data, because its dichotomous branching logic can deal with small changes in DNA sequences that can distinguish between species that are so similar that Taxonomic approaches do not seem to work well. Because DNA dominates evolutionary thinking in the 21st century, systematics tends to dominate at present. As an example, we had no idea how diverse bacteria were, or even that Archaea differed from other bacteria until we were able to sequence their DNA. I guess I am trying to say is that Taxonomy is very useful when looking at macroorganisms who have anatomical traits that can be readily distinguished and examined. Systematics has revealed vast realms of diversity of which we were previously unaware. Both are important and I wish that this was not set up as a typical Western science dyad in which scholars are expected to take sides.

As I said earlier all collaborating fields are important.

Thanks Raymond.

Classic and modern systematic should complement each other?

Undoubtedly so.

the taxonomy for blind man (and not the eyeless) is as

the music for deaf person and not without ears!

A rose, is a rose, is a rose. Nomina si nescis perit et cognitio ipsa rerum (Linnaeus). Personally I am proud of being scientifically born as a taxonomist. Bests to all. Mario

I am not sure that falling back kn Linnaeus as source is any sort of resolution. Linnaeus is historically important but his taxonomy is full of errors that we are still trying to sort out, i.e. his identification of dogs as a species separate from wolves. He never did day what criteria he used, or which dog was his type specimen. I have spent many hours in courtrooms trying to educate people who think that a dog is a dog is a dog, when this i clearly not the case.

Yes we need curious mind and eyes to differentiate. To me grass is grass but not so for those who work on the taxonomy of grasses.

Great Dr Subir. Primary aim of taxonomy is in fact to enable one to differentiate between various taxa with a scientific logic behind. If I come to the root topic of discussion, I feel that taxonomy is a discipline which is quite indispensable for all other working in biology. So it will be a never dying science. It is most basic and also most synthetic.

My M Sc special paper was Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. After joining BSI my field of work changed. After years of experience and learning from others (my colleagues and leading plant nomenclature specialists of the world) I have developed fascination for plant nomenclature.

Please allow me to recall the distinction (by G. Gaylord Simpson) between Taxonomy and Systematics: The first is the corpus of the concepts, principles and methods that make it possible to classify a universe - in our case, of living beings. The systematics (of any group) is the product of the application of systematic criteria to the same group, producing its Classification. The Nomenclature reflects and summarizes the systematics.   A dromedary  (Camelus dromedarius ) is  not exactly a camel (Camelus bactrianus). Finally, the Identification (of any sample) is the process by which we attribute our samples to the recognized taxa in the framework of the systematic scheme we adopt. I beg all of forgiving me a certain fussiness, but I believe that, above all in our research field, words are stones. All my bests. Mario

Simpson did not realize that we would be able to sequence DNA and use the resulting information in systematics. This has changed systematics and this is what has made taxonomy somewhat irrelevant in the minds of systematists.

A clear chaos is being perceived by most of the taxonomists. It is not so uncommon to encounter a species/genus which is known to the world as 'A' has been deposited in the gene bank as 'B' by some molecular taxonomists and that has lead to the opening of Pandora's Boxes here and there in almost all those phyla represented by microscopic organisms. Besides, many journals have made it mandatory to submit the molecular data of species particularly the new ones.

I think I said this in previous answers.

I fully agree that molecular characters must fit within the criteria of modern taxonomy. These investigations must therefore be used to refute, confirm or correct existing (systematic) classification schemes. The results of such investigations inevitably lead to changes in the classifications. In order to avoid the chaos to which Mohammad refers, such changes must necessarily be reflected also in the nomenclature.

On Sunday, November 4, 2018, 6:07:40 AM GMT+5:30, Gandhi, Kanchi Natarajan wrote:

Just pasting a part of a mail from Dr Gandhi:

I also gave a general talk essentially to mention the story about the genus Striga´s current placement in Orobanchaceae (APG system).    I mentioned that although the current placement in Orobanchaceae was made

Also see an answer in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_I_can_say_that_the_tree_constructed_based_only_on_morphological_data_is_phylogenetic

In my opinion I think that there is an increasing need for a reliable taxonomical system. Taxonomists needs to consolidate on the advances in the use of modern techniques.

For your analogy, I think it is largely due to the inconsistencies made by taxonomists in the past and this alone is not good news for the discipline.

One always has the advantage to refine something. Creating the base is difficult. Linnaeus and others laid down the base of taxonomy, now we are refining it using modern available facilities.

We can by no means blame them for creating inconsistencies.

Todays modern techniques were not available in the past. Still then, there outputs can be considered as superb

What Linnaeus did at that time that too without having the modern tools and techniques is commendable. The system of nomenclature, the information on various groups of organisms he presented and many more. He opened our eyes to see the diversity. We will remain indebted to him.

Yes it is really an original work

Linnaeus was the father of binomial system of nomenclature and thanks to him, to day we can to know the great biodiversity of the oceans,lagoon,lakes,rivers,mountain,etc,so like said Drs.Mahamood Bandyopadhyay ,it is a great and original work.

I think we all agree that Linnaeus as a very important historical figure to whom we owe a great intellectual debt. Having said that it needs to be remembered that Linnaeus was not trying to understand evolution history or Theory, but exploring "how the mind of god worked". What this means on the contemporary world was that Linnaeus' approach is not really relevant to our studies of evolutionary biology. This is a major reason that taxonomy has been superseded to some degree by phylogenetics and then by systematics, which do assume that evolution has occurred and that it is he basis of our understanding of biology and how it is organized.

All these paeans to Linnaeus are straying far from the original question.

Yes you are right Dr. Raymond. We all have diverted from the original topic of this discussion.

Rather than stating that taxonomy has not been able to attract many scientists I would say that Scientific institutions had not given the credit to those who wanted to pursue a taxonomical career. I know many scientists who told me they loved taxonomy but had to shift in order to survive. Nonetheless, zoology and taxonomy still call the same attention and curiosity to many people.

Secondly, I would like to say that despite the many cliches that go from mouth to mouth about taxonomy I do not see it dying. On the opposite side, I see a world calling for it desperately because we are going through a huge biodiversity crises without having any clue about the biodiversity that lives on planet Earth.

"What is the use of taxonomy and what is there in a name?" I have some issues on reading this kind of question coming from a taxonomist. Taxonomy is the base of all scientific work. If you are working in major groups of taxa you will use it. If you are working at the species level you will use it. If you are working with biology, ecology, molecular studies, biogeography you need to have a properly identified dataset. If you go to the field and say I am watching MOTU 16 that will not be accepted by the ICZN neither recognised by most people who know its latin scientific name. Will it be comparable with all the work done with taxonomy during centuries of research? No.

I agree that most people can not or is not willing to understand the true need of current taxonomy. Nonetheless, as one still learning, I can assure you it is not dying. It is so needed that I get collaborations from different fields of research just because I am one of the few who can identify species (morphospecies). I get funding to visit museum collections. I am invited to research expeditions. And I would like to double or triple myself to do all I have to do and more. So, please, pass the positive message. We need taxonomy more than ever. Those who love to do it should be recognised for keeping an outstanding record of the natural library that is our world. For providing datasets of basic need for many research areas and vouchers in collections that can be used in ways we still did not invented for centuries to come.

There are two separate issues being raised In Dr. Sampaio's response. First is whether or not ecologists, and some other scientists need to have a "properly identified dataset", although what i think she means i the species you are studying needs to be properly identified, which is not quite the same thing as a data set. In molecular biology and its evolutionary offshoots, however this is not really the case. One of the best examples of this is in my area of study, looking at wolves and dogs. In this area the UCLA molecular systematics group has published a couple of dozen papers in Nature and Science without ever providing a Linnaean binomial to the organisms they investigate (If you don't believe me read some of their papers, the names to look for are Robert Wayne or Bridget VonHoldt).

The other issue is whether or not one can be employed today if you describe yourself as a Taxonomist. I think this is unlikely, largely because you will not find this term used in job ads at major universities. You will rarely find ads looking for systematists, but this is typically assumed when you advertise for an evolutionary biologist, because systematics is considered to represent evolutionary history, whereas Taxonomy is often described as "stamp collection".

I am not saying I like this state of affairs, but at least in North America it seems to be the norm. People studying most disciplines still provide a binomial, but try identifying anything above the species level in Systematics publications.

Dear #Iris Sampaio, the question didn't come from a taxonomist, that was just narrated. I just shared my past experience. I was asked that question while I was participating the 3rd Global Meet on Parasitic Diseases (Bangalore, India) when I was a Ph. D. student. Mine was a poster presentation and one of those senior scientists who came to examine the posters asked me that very question you quoted. He did not even allow me to explain my work. He said, "No no, you have got just 2 minutes. Just tell me the importance of your work. What is the importance of taxonomy and what is there in a name?"

Then I started very politely (though it was getting tough to be polite), "Thank you for giving me 2 minutes while you are giving 5 to everyone. I am sorry but you are blind without taxonomists. First we open your eyes and you see the biodiversity. Then, you choose an organism as a model for your studies. Now, you are asking me what is there in a name, right? I think, to better understand the importance of a name, you should start introducing yourself without taking your name. Taxonomy, to me, is the mother of all biological sciences while the rules governing it - its backbone. Thank you."

I hope it is clear for you now.

This is nothing but superiority complex but such kind of persons are not many.

Normalising their complex is a joy. Having worked in a team of leading nematode taxonomists (Section of Nematology, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India) I find it easy to show the mirror and tell where they (non taxonomists) stand. As per Dr. Baqri, more than 75% of the research articles published in international journals of Nematology are contributed by the members of such a small group of nematologists.

Thank you Dr. Raymond for the information you shared.

Thank you Dr. Subir Bandyopadhyay.

Hi Raymond Pierotti. What's the paper you advice to read by Robert Wayne or Bridget VonHoldt? Thank you

Read any of their papers of DNA in canids. They never present a species name for the organisms they are studying. That was my point is that some of these DNA based systematists are abandoning taxonomy altogether.

Is it according to PhyloCode?

Thank you. I had a quick look at http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1501714.full and understand what you mean. Although some magazines request: "use common names of animals and plants, giving scientific names in italics on first mention then just the common name throughout." I don't like much and even less that DNA only is used in taxonomy. Just my opinion.

Though not accepted widely the system has come to existence. Let's wait and watch what happens.

It is the classical taxonomy that "many people consider it as a dying science". Indeed, nowaday, many researchers believe that classical taxonomy must be rethought, given the fact that it suffers from the development of other biology disciplines; particularly those related to development of new techniques. As a result, it now seems dethroned by integrative taxonomy, a discipline that synthesizes all the data of biology to build a large synthesis of our knowledge on species.

Yes, you are right Dr. @Oum Kalthoum. However, my concern is about those people who are not that lucky to have those newly developed tools and techniques. The world still has a lot of countries where many labs are still waiting to have even a simple PCR or the likes. Many people still use camera lucida because they can't afford a drawing tube. For me, I'm lucky enough to have all of them and also I have good collaborations with a few of those famous ecologists who need my expertise in the so called classical taxonomy.

It is easy to refine than to do a work for the first time.

Yes Dr. Subir. It will be easier to find out those areas in which we can continue to work in our specialised areas and also diversify our fields. Switching to a completely new area will demand many unexpected things and probably we all may not be able to afford those things.

Is what Ben Hassine refers to as "integrative taxonomy" the same thing that is referred to as "Phylogenetic Systematics" in the US? It seems to me at times as if we are all using different terms and possibly referring to different fields of study. Phylogenetic Systematics is basically taxonomy structured to illustrate an evolutionary sequence within a group of related taxa. This is why it is referred to as Phylogenetic , because it is presumed to reveal the more or less exact sequence of evolutionary events by examining the distribution of shared and derived characters. The reason classical Taxonomy has been displaced (I would not call it dying) is because the way Taxonomy is typically structured it shows clusters of related forms expanding from a single root, i.e. wolves, coyotes, jackals and wild dogs all sprout from a generalized canid ancestor. In systematics the exact sequence of these events would be revealed, especially when DNA sequences are involved.

When you all refer to taxonomy, what sorts of trees do you envision? They could be cladistic branching trees or classic (Darwinian, Linnean) trees, without strict sequences of events.

The diverse views on the importance of taxonomic research always crop up but the funding agencies are always hesitant in supporting classical taxonomy. There is no doubt about the importance of taxonomy in biological research and the scientists also give favorable recommendations as could be seen from the recommendations of Earth Submit (Rio de Jeneiro 1992). However, the end result was an influx of so called molecular taxonomists who without having any experience of actually identifying the real species, went on submitting the sequences of misidentified specimens in the gene bank. The phylogeny based on these sequences often create lots of confusion.

On the other hand some enthusiastic biologists are talking about phylocode, a system more influenced by Hollywood si fi films.

If we really want that the biological research should be based on correctly identified organism, we need to encourage classical taxonomy with additional molecular information as and when required.

Dear Sir, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and experiences @Wasim Ahmad. Being an authority of soil nematode taxonomy, your words can do wonders which we cannot even think of.

In my opinion, the "traditional systematic" should be the basic of taxonomy. Because systematic is often doubtful and bias, molecular systematic should serve for clarification. To base taxonomy on molecular systematic only may be a mistake that we will have to rectify at great efforts and wasting of time.

Francesco Nardelli @

I feel we should judiciously use both traditional and molecular systematics keeping in mind the varied groups of organisms.

Dr. Nardelli's response provides a good illustration of what I am referring to. What does he mean by the "Traditional Systematic should be the basis of taxonomy"? What is traditional systematics? In my experience investigators use standard anatomical criteria as their starting point and use molecular data to provide strong verification and tests of hypotheses. I don't think anyone uses only molecular information without having already done a basic classification of the group they are investigating. Of course with microorganisms molecular data may be all that we have. The real issue here is whether Classical Taxonomy provides the evolutionary sequence information (Phylogeny) that is the basis of contemporary systematics. This is the rock upon which classical taxonomy, i.e. classification based only on anatomical features, may founder.

Kindly see the attachment

Sleepless nights: When you can’t find anything to use but molecules to

describe new taxa

Tripp & Lendemer TAXON 63 (5) • October 2014: 969–971.

Abstract A set of guidelines is proposed as a standard for authors who describe new taxa and affect other taxonomic revisions

based solely on molecular

Thank you @Dr. Subir for sharing this interesting article.

I meant that traditional systematic (morphology and partly behaviour) should be applied first and then DNA analysis to determine uncertainties/confirmations.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)31214-4

Thank you very much Dr. Raymond Pierotti. I totally agree with you. You explained what I meant by the term "integrative taxonomy", which refers to the fact of "using standard morphological and anatomical criteria as starting point and using molecular data to provide strong verification"

@ Dr. Mohammad Mahamood: I agree with you that the majority of researchers in developing countries lack the financial means and therefore the tools to carry out high-level research, but you mentioned in your commentary the solution to be adopted by these researchers. namely, initiating collaborations and joint research projects with laboratories in developed countries where these tools are available. As for the so-called classical taxonomy, it constitutes the first step of what I have called integrative taxonomy.

Best regards

Do not think twice, it is obvious that taxonomy is the most important science to be able to identify a species. Without taxonomy, molecular biologists could not recognize the species deposited in a natural history museum, nor could they be able to carry out research without the support of the taxonomist or specialist. In fact, taxonomy is a science because to describe a species a work hypothesis must be proposed to prove or refute whether the identification is done right or wrong, using a reproducible methodology that can be replicated by another researcher

@Luis Miguel Constantino

Dear Professor,

What do you mean by "reproducible methodology that can be replicated by another researcher"? Does this correspond to species determination keys?

Dear Dr. @Oum Kalthoum,

Thank you for your kind response. Yes, for the time being, it seems that the so-called classical taxonomy will have to find a mode of co-existence (Integrative Taxonomy as you say) with one or other form of biological studies viz., Molecular Taxonomy, Phylogeny, Ecology or the likes.

Dear Dr. @Luis Miguel Constantino,

I do strongly believe in that. However, in the game of impact factors the classical taxonomists are lagging behind. At the same time, not many journals are left in which you can publish the descriptions of new species based on only morphology.

Dear Oum:

All the methodologies of classification on which the taxonomist can be based, such as the revision of the type material (holotypes) deposited in a museum, cladistic analyzes based on morphological characters, the study of genitalia, studies of life cycles, studies of ecology, behavior and ethology, biogeography, phylogenetic relationships based on taxonomy and DNA analysis as a final complement for decision making.