It can be frustrating... There is little support for taxonomy, which is the basis for communication in ecology. Gov't institutions do not want to pay the $ to employ these kind of abstract scienists. Academia is where most go. Then there are countries such as Brazil that make it difficult to visit and study in the field. Not that this country is much different... For all the talk there is little action and even less $. It is hard to feed your family on ideals...this message resonates through the jungle communities whre diversity is richest on to the consumers that drive this trend. Kevin D. Preuss http://www.amaryllis-plus.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Poulsen" <wpoulsen@pacbell.net> To: "PBS Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: [pbs] Taxonomy on the Web - from Nature, pt. 1 Some interesting articles for those interested. --Lee Poulsen Pasadena area, California, USDA Zone 9-10 ======================================================================== = http://nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf/… n6998/full/430385a_fs.html Editorials Nature 430, 385 (22 July 2004); doi:///10.1038/430385a Ignorance is not bliss We are witnessing a catastrophic loss of species that is the direct result of human activities. Yet we remain scandalously ill informed about the processes that give rise to biodiversity, and the consequences of its loss. If variety is the spice of life, we face an increasingly bland future. There are perhaps 10 million species of organism on Earth, of which at most 1.8 million have been described. In some taxonomic groups, up to 20% of known species face extinction, and countless more are disappearing unnoticed. This should concern us all because we don't know what the consequences will be. In general, the less diverse an ecosystem, the less productive and stable it is. But ecologists are currently unable to make specific predictions that could help inform decisions about development and conservation. If this is to change, we must reinvigorate taxonomy and describe the vast ranks of unnamed species. We need more passionate field workers, like Peter Ng of the National University of Singapore, whose efforts to catalogue neglected faunas are profiled on page 396. And we must ensure that the results of their endeavours don't languish on dusty shelves. We also need to answer practical questions about the consequences of biodiversity loss. How many species are needed for an ecosystem to function? Will the loss of certain key species have disproportionate knock-on effects? This research must be done on appropriate scales of time and space: consider biodiversity over too short a time, or too small an area, and you can get the wrong answers. Many interested scientists say gloomily that governments are not interested in this work. Given the stakes, this defeatism isn't good enough. Taxonomists and ecologists should look to the visionaries in their own midst, and to what their colleagues in genetics and climatology have achieved by understanding how to cast a research agenda in a light that can inspire — and if necessary, alarm — politicians. Few have a clearer vision than Charles Godfray, director of the UK Natural Environment Research Council's Centre for Population Biology at Silwood Park, west of London. He argues that taxonomy must emerge from museums to become a web-based information science (H. C. J. Godfray Nature 417, 17–19; 2002). Some initiatives of this ilk are under way, but the call has been short-sightedly rejected by much of the taxonomic community, notably the Linnean Society of London. Godfray was also instrumental in setting up one of the few long-term ecological projects investigating the consequences of declining biodiversity in a developing country where the problem is particularly acute. With backing from Britain's Royal Society, the Sabah Biodiversity Project in Malaysian Borneo is investigating ecosystem function and timber production in felled forests planted with varying numbers of species of dipterocarp — the main type of tree found in the rainforests of southeast Asia. More projects of this type are needed, but they won't be forthcoming unless ecologists can take a leaf from the book of the geneticists whose lobbying in the late 1980s led to the Human Genome Project. There are parallels between the two research agendas. Like taxonomy, genome sequencing is purely descriptive, while the Sabah study of ecosystem function is conceptually related to systems biology, the probing of the function of gene networks that has followed in genomics' wake. Taxonomists and ecologists need to dispel the notion that their work — which involves dirty boots, rather than gleaming lab machinery — is somehow less scientific. The cheerleaders of genomics promised gains in terms of human health and economic output. The economic consequences of ecosystem management are harder to quantify, but they are no less real: sustainable forestry, agriculture and tourism can all put developing economies on a sounder footing, to the benefit of us all. Climatologists faced similar problems in explaining the economics of their case. After global warming was identified as a threat, some leading climatologists became highly effective lobbyists, pounding the corridors of power to stress the importance of their work. They won increased research funding and the establishment of the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So far, taxonomists and ecologists have failed to muster a comparable response to the galloping loss of our planet's biodiversity. It's time that they did. © 2004 Nature Publishing Group ======================================================================== =========================== http://nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf/… n7004/full/431017b_fs.html Correspondence Nature 431, 17 (02 September 2004); doi:///10.1038/431017b ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Linnean Society backs Godfray on use of web > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Sir – Your Editorial "Ignorance is not bliss" (Nature 430, 385; 2004) notes that Charles Godfray "argues that taxonomy must emerge from museums to become a web-based information science". It continues: "Some initiatives of this ilk are under way, but the call has been short-sightedly rejected by much of the taxonomic community, notably the Linnean Society of London." I was president of the Linnean Society from 2000 to 2003. During this period the society submitted written evidence to the Inquiry into Systematic Biology and Biodiversity held by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. This evidence was published in What on Earth? The Threat to the Science Underpinning Conservation: Evidence (HL paper 118 (ii); 2002). On pages 124–125, the following statement occurs as part of the Linnean Society's evidence (all of which was formally approved by its council): "Professor Charles Godfray FRS ... argues powerfully and persuasively for a major sea-change in taxonomy whereby the systematics of all groups of organisms would become a single web-based resource .... His proposal would have the particular advantage that at last, taxonomic information would become easily available .... This will be essential if real and effective progress is to be made in the conservation of biodiversity in the UK." The Linnean Society therefore does not reject but supports the initiatives that have been proposed by Charles Godfray. David Smith 13 Abbotsford Park, Edinburgh EH10 5DZ, UK © 2004 Nature Publishing Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >