Systematics And Taxonomy: Follow-up
HOUSE OF LORDSScience and Technology Committee5th Report of Session 2007–08Systematics andTaxonomy:Follow-upReport with EvidenceOrdered to be printed 21 July 2008 and published 13 August 2008Published by the Authority of the House of LordsLondon : The Stationery Office Limited priceHL Paper 162
Science and Technology CommitteeThe Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Lords in each session “toconsider science and technology”.Current MembershipThe Members of the Science and Technology Committee are:Lord ColwynLord CrickhowellLord HaskelLord Howie of TroonLord KrebsLord May of OxfordLord MethuenEarl of NortheskLord O’Neill of ClackmannanLord PatelEarl of SelborneLord Sutherland of Houndwood (Chairman)Lord TaverneLord WarnerInformation about the Committee and PublicationsInformation about the Science and Technology Committee, including details of current inquiries,can be found on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/hlscience/. Committee publications,including reports, press notices, transcripts of evidence and government responses to reports, canbe found at the same address.Committee reports are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.General InformationGeneral information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance towitnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is on the internet at:http://www.parliament.uk/about lords/about lords.cfm.Contacts for the Science and Technology CommitteeAll correspondence should be addressed to:The Clerk of the Science and Technology CommitteeCommittee OfficeHouse of LordsLondonSW1A 0PWThe telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6075.The Committee’s email address is hlscience@parliament.uk.
CONTENTSParagraphAbstractPage7Chapter 1: IntroductionImportance of systematic biologyPrevious reportsOur current inquiryAcknowledgements1.11.31.81.119991012Chapter 2: The Role of Systematic Biology in the Deliveryof PoliciesRange of policy areas involving systematic biologyConservation of biodiversity in a global contextConservation of UK biodiversityProtection against invasive alien speciesResponding to climate changeCapacity buildingAdapting to ecosystem services analysisPolicing global trade in endangered speciesPromoting public engagement in environmental issuesIdentification of emerging diseases and disease surveillanceTaxonomic skills in the private 72930Chapter 3: Health of the Discipline in the UK: ProfessionalTaxonomists, Volunteers and RecruitmentTaxonomists in the UK: general pictureUK university sectorWider science communityTaxonomists in the UK: age profileSectors in crisisClassification of taxonomic activityDescriptive taxonomyIdentificationPhylogenetic systematicsSupply and demandImportance of the voluntary sectorRecruitmentInspiring a new generationTaxonomy in schools and the importance of field studiesRegional museums and reference collectionsTrainingMentoring for volunteersChapter 4: Tools and Technology for the Twenty-FirstCenturyOpportunitiesDigitisation of collections and the InternetBarcodingDNA-based taxonomy and the morphological approach
Keys and handbooksResearch collectionsNational Biodiversity NetworkChapter 5: FundingDiversity of funding sourcesFunding by NERCProduction of identification keys and field guidesCABI fungi collectionChapter 6: Government AwarenessOverviewDefraDIUS: Research CouncilsDIUS: HEFCE and the RAEEnvironment Research Funders’ ForumDCMSAwareness in 6.16.26.66.106.156.176.183636363738393939Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations40Appendix 1: Science and Technology Committee44Appendix 2: List of Witnesses46Appendix 3: Call for Evidence49Appendix 4: Seminar at the Natural History Museum51Appendix 5: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations56Oral EvidenceProfessor Stephen Hopper and Dr Eimear Nic Lughadha (Royal BotanicGardens, Kew); Professor Mary Gibby, Director of Science (Royal BotanicGarden Edinburgh); Dr Michael Dixon and Professor Richard Lane(The Natural History Museum)Written Evidence from The Natural History Museum, RBG Edinburgh,and RBG KewOral Evidence (19 February 2008)122Dr Pamela Kempton (NERC); Professor Georgina Mace (NERCCollaborative Centre); Dr Colin Miles and Dr Alf Game (BBSRC);Professor Philip Esler (AHRC); Professor Brian Cathcart (KingstonUniversity); Dr Ben Cowell (DCMS); Dr Miles Parker and Professor NicolaSpence (Defra); and Dr Liam Kelly (The Scottish Government)Written Evidence from the Research Councils UK, Defra, DCMSOral Evidence (11 March 2008)Supplementary Evidence from Defra, DCMS and the ResearchCouncils UK365876
Professor David Cutler and Dr Sandra Knapp (Linnean Society);Professor Richard Bateman (Systematics Association); Professor Rick Battarbee(University College London); Professor Richard Gornall(Botanical Society of the British Isles); Dr Alastair Culham (Universityof Reading)Written Evidence from the BSBI, the Systematics Association, theLinnean Society, University of Reading and UCL85Oral Evidence (25 March 2008)122Supplementary Evidence from the Systematics Association141Sir Neil Chalmers and Dr Jim Munford (National Biodiversity NetworkTrust); Dr Mark Hill (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology); Dr IanMcLean (Joint Nature Conservation Committee); Dr RichardFortey (Geological Society)Written Evidence from the JNCC and the National BiodiversityNetwork TrustOral Evidence (29 April 2008)143149Dr Alf Game and Mr Steven Visscher (BBSRC); Professor AlanThorpe (NERC); Ian Pearson MP, Minister of State for Scienceand Innovation (DIUS)Written EvidenceOral Evidence (6 May 2008)162162Rt Hon Lord Rooker (Defra); Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP (DCMS)Oral Evidence (21 May 2008)177Written EvidenceMr Henry BarlowBiological Recording in ScotlandBioNET-INTERNATIONALBiosciences FederationBooth Museum of Natural HistoryDr Janet Bradford-GrieveThe British Embassy (Rome)The British Lichen SocietyThe British Mycological SocietyThe British Phycological SocietyBuglifeCAB InternationalCentre for Plant Diversity & Systematics, University of ReadingDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of OxfordDr Henry DisneyEMLRC (Leicestershire County Council)EDIT ConsortiumMr Bill ElyDr Genoveva EstebanEuropean Mycological AssociationGlobal Biodiversity Information FacilityE F GreenwoodHertfordshire Natural History SocietyInternational Trust for Zoological 6231232233235239241243250252254257
Professor Marcel JasparsMrs Patricia LorberProfessor Amyan MacfadyenMycology sub-committee UK BRAGNational Federation for Biological RecordingNational Museum LiverpoolNational Museum WalesNational Science Collections AssociationMr Adrian NorrisPlant Diversity Challenge Steering GroupPlantlife InternationalThe Royal Entomological SocietyThe Royal Horticultural SocietySchool of Computer Science, Cardiff UniversityThe Scottish Environment Protection AgencySociety for General MicrobiologyUK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group & the Global BiodiversitySub-Committee of the UKDr John Waland IsmayProfessor Roy WatlingWellcome TrustThe Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North MerseysideYorkshire Naturalists’ UnionNOTE: References in the text of the report are as follows:(Q) refers to a question in oral evidence(p) refers to a page of written 302303309317320321322324
ABSTRACTSystematic biology is at the heart of our understanding of the natural world.In this time of climate change, understanding the connection between the naturalworld and human well-being—understanding the value and dynamic of“ecosystem services”—has a vital importance more widely recognised than everbefore. “Ecosystem services” is a concept which has developed an importance inrecent years to the point where it now sets the context of the current debate onenvironment sustainability. Simply defined, ecosystem services are “the benefitswe derive from natural ecosystems”.This is our third inquiry into systematics and taxonomy. We reported in 1992,under the chairmanship of Lord Dainton, with a follow-up inquiry in 2001–02under the chairmanship of Baroness Walmsley. We chose to embark on thisinquiry now because of the environmental imperatives increasingly manifest in ourdaily lives. We have asked two questions in particular: whether systematic biologyin the UK is in a fit state to generate the essential taxonomic information requiredto understand ecosystem services and whether the UK has the skills available tounderstand and predict the impact of climate change on biodiversity.We have concluded that the state of systematics and taxonomy in the UK, both interms of the professional taxonomic community and volunteers, is unsatisfactory—in some areas, such as mycology, to the point of crisis—and that more needs to bedone to ensure the future health of the discipline. We propose, for example, thatthere should be more effective and regular dialogue between the users andproducers of taxonomy on the priorities for developing UK systematic biology, andwe emphasise the importance of stimulating recruitment and also of taking steps tofire the imagination of school children by creative incorporation of environmentaland biodiversity issues into school curricula.The study of systematic biology, in common with other areas of science, has beentransformed by technological innovation. Of particular importance are thedevelopment of molecular taxonomy and the potential of web-based taxonomy.We have no doubt that the benefits to be reaped from technological innovation areenormous. We are aware however that they need to be harnessed withdiscrimination and we call on the Research Councils and the taxonomicinstitutions to respond to this challenge.Although we received clear evidence from the taxonomic community of awidespread concern about the state of the discipline, that concern appears to belargely unheard by the Government and by the Research Councils. We find thisworrying. We believe that part of the problem is the fragmentation withinGovernment of responsibility for systematic biology. We therefore recommendthat the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills be designated as thelead department and that that department should exercise the leadership withoutwhich we fear that the downward slide of UK taxonomy is set to continue.
Systematics and Taxonomy:Follow-upCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONBOX 1DefinitionsTaxonomy is the scientific discipline of describing, delimiting and namingorganisms, both living and fossil, and systematics is the process of organisingtaxonomic information about organisms into a logical classification thatprovides the framework for all comparative studies. In this report systematicsand taxonomy are referred to collectively as systematic biology.Importance of systematic biology1.1. Two hundred and fifty years ago, Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) introduced thesystem for scientific names which is used today. Since then, taxonomists havedescribed and named about 1.78 million species of animals, plants andmicro-organisms. The total number of species on Earth is unknown but,according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, probably lies between5 million and 30 million.1 Systematic biology is the tool by which thesecomponents of biodiversity are identified, named and enumerated, and bywhich their relationships are described.1.2. The evidence we received emphasised the central importance of systematicbiology to our understanding of the natural world. The Wellcome Trustdescribes it as “fundamental to the understanding of biodiversity and theways that biodiversity may be changing, particularly in the context of climatechange and global health threats” (p 321). The Joint Nature ConservationCommittee (JNCC) refers to systematics as “an essential tool that underpinsbiodiversity conservation by providing a logical classification and frameworkfor describing and studying living organisms” (p 146), and the UnitedKingdom Biodiversity Research Advisory Group (UK BRAG) and theGlobal Biodiversity Sub-Committee (GBSC) of the UK GlobalEnvironmental Change Committee (UK GECC) describe taxonomy as “anecessary underpinning for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use,ecosystem services and climate change in the UK and globally” (p 311).Previous reports1.3. This inquiry follows two previous reports by this Committee.1.4. Our first inquiry, under the chairmanship of Lord Dainton, was prompted byconcern for the state of systematic biology research in the United Kingdom.The Committee’s report, Systematic Biology Research, was published in 1992,2following which several short-term measures to stimulate systematic biology1See www.maweb.org2House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, First Report, Session 1991–92, Systematic BiologyResearch (HL Paper 22).
10SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY: FOLLOW-UPwere introduced, such as the Natural Environment Research Council(NERC) Taxonomy Initiative (1994–1998) and the Wellcome TrustBiodiversity Initiative (1993–2002).3 Both Initiatives are regarded as havingbeen successful and their contribution is still felt today. Professor GeorginaMace, Director of the Centre for Population Biology at the NERCCollaborative Centre, for example, told us that one of the reasons whyNERC had been able to fund a number of grants relating to the expertisebase in taxonomy was that “many of those taxonomists trained as a result ofthe Taxonomy Initiative in the 1990s are now embedded within researchgroups” (Q 54).1.5. A decade after the original inquiry we became aware of continuing problemsin systematic biology and a second inquiry, under the chairmanship ofBaroness Walmsley, was launched in 2001. The purpose of the inquiry was(a) to establish whether systematic biology in the UK was in decline and if sowhy, (b) to clarify whether it mattered if systematic biology were in declineand, in particular, what impact a decline would have on biodiversityconservation, and (c) to identify what action, if any, was required. TheCommittee’s report, What on Earth? The Threat to the Science UnderpinningConservation, was published in 2002.1.6. The response to the recommendations made in the 2002 report has beenmixed. There have been some successes. For example, the Committeerecommended that the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences ResearchCouncil (BBSRC) should reconsider its decision not to award academicanalogue status to the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (RBG Edinburgh)and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (RBG Kew) (Recommendation 1.5).Academic analogue status has now been awarded to both institutions. TheCommittee also recommended that the systematic biology communityshould increase efforts to demonstrate the relevance and importance ofsystematic biology (Recommendation 1.6). As a result, an annual systematicsdebate series was inaugurated by the Linnean Society, and the LinneanSociety and the Systematics Association, together with the BBSRC, launcheda new funding scheme (Collaborative Scheme for Systematics Research—CoSyst) for systematics projects, which is now in its third year.1.7. Other recommendations were not taken forward. For example, the HigherEducation Funding Council for England (HEFCE) did not explore ways inwhich to support systematic biology, as they do with other minoritydisciplines (Recommendation 1.4), and the Department for theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) did not establish a coordinating body (Recommendation 1.8). In view of the Government’sgenerally disappointing response, many of the issues addressed by our 2002report are revisited in this second follow-up inquiry.Our current inquiry1.8. The Government’s new focus on environmental sustainability and increasingawareness of the impact of climate change on biodiversity have made it3The UK Systematics Forum was also established to provide a focus for systematic biology science, but waswound down in 2001. See House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 3rd Report.Session 2001–02, What on Earth? The Threat to the Science Underpinning Conservation (HL Paper 118), paras2.7, 2.8, 3.6 and 3.7.
SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY: FOLLOW-UP11timely for the Committee to return again to the issue of systematic biology;and, in particular, to consider:(a) whether systematic biology in the UK is in a fit state to generate theessential taxonomic information required by the emergence of theconcept of ecosystem services (see Box 2 below), and(b) whether the UK has the skills available to be able to understand andpredict the impact of climate change on biodiversity,whilst continuing to meet the ongoing needs of biodiversity conservation andalso the broader needs of taxonomy as a discipline which underpins allaspects of biology. In considering these questions, we have borne in mind thehistorical importance of the UK within the global taxonomic community as aresult of the collections held in the UK (for example, The Natural HistoryMuseum (NHM), RBG Kew, RGB Edinburgh and the Zoological Society ofLondon).BOX 2The ecosystem services conceptEcosystem Services are the benefits we derive from natural ecosystems. Thesebenefits may be derived from supporting services such as primary productionby green plants (upon which virtually all life depends), from regulatingservices such as atmospheric gas regulation or pollination, from provisioningservices such as access to wood for fuel, fibres and food products, and fromcultural services such as the recreational and spiritual value of naturalecosystems. This powerful concept has sharpened awareness of the directrelationship between the provision of ecosystem services and continuedhuman well-being (ref. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment),4 and wasassimilated into the rationale behind sustainability with astonishing rapidity.1.9. This is not just a UK issue. Broad concern over the state of taxonomyinternationally led the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) to acknowledge the existence of a “taxonomic impediment” toimplementation of the CBD, referring to the shortage of taxonomic expertise,taxonomic collections, field guides and other identification aids, as well as tothe difficulty in accessing existing taxonomic information. In response to this“taxonomic impediment”, in 2002 the parties to the CBD launched aprogramme of work under the Global Taxonomy Initiative.51.10. Like every scientific discipline, systematic biology is changing rapidly. Newanalytical and computational methods are constantly under development andthere was a sense in our 2002 report that some of the novel approachesexplored in a preliminary way during that inquiry might transform (andstrengthen) the discipline. As part of our current inquiry, we have lookedagain at some of the technological developments within systematic biology inorder to assess progress after six years and to consider their potential for thesystematic biologist and for the discipline as a whole.4See footnote 1 above.5Guide to the Global Taxonomy Initiative, 2008, CBD Technical Series No 30, 105pp. Published by theSecretariat of the Convention on Biology Diversity. See http://www.cbd.int/gti/
12SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY: FOLLOW-UPAcknowledgements1.11. The membership of the Select Committee is set out in Appendix 1, and ourcall for evidence, published in December 2007, in Appendix 3. Those whosubmitted written and oral evidence are listed in Appendix 2. We would liketo thank all of our witnesses, as well as those who submitted articles andother materials in the course of the inquiry.1.12. We launched this inquiry with a seminar, held in the Darwin Centre at TheNHM, in February 2008. During the course of the day we had the pleasureof touring some of The NHM collections. A note of the seminar is given inAppendix
Systematics and Taxonomy: Follow-up CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION BOX 1 Definitions Taxonomy is the scientific discipline of describing, delimiting and naming organisms, both living and fossil, and systematics is the process of organising taxonomic infor
Systematics and Taxonomy, Entognatha through Blattaria Systematics: Taxonomy: Hierarchy of categories used in classification . Phylum (and subphylum) Class (and subclass) Order (and suborder) Superfamily Family (and subfami
systematics. In fact, pre-Darwinian systematics as ahistorical science provides an invaluable resource for understanding what it means that systematics is essentially historical. Systematics is an ideal subject for understanding historical scientific methodology precisely because we
Taxonomy, Phylogeny, and Organization Chapter Outline 7.1 Taxonomy and Phylogeny A Taxonomic Hierarchy Nomenclature Molecular Approaches to Animal Systematics Domains and Kingdoms Animal Systematics 7.2 Patterns of Organization Symmetry Other Patterns of
Apr 18, 2013 · systematics, integrating phylogenetic signal from the population up based on DNA and through time based on direct observation rather than inference. Molecular systematics in the 21st century For several years, molecular systematics has been the dominant phylogenetic paradigm [1]. By t
systematics. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the basics: what a plant is, what systematics is, and the reasons for studying plant systematics. PLANTS WHAT IS A PLANT? This question can be answered in either of two conceptual w
systematics-1 Evolution and Biodiversity Laboratory Systematics and Taxonomy by Dana Krempels and Julian Lee Recent estimates of our planet's biological diversity suggest that the species number between 5 and 50 million, or even more. To effective
The intent of both systematics and taxonomy is to describe or-ganismic diversity in a general way (“systematics is the study of or-ganismic diversity,” Wiley, 1981). However, conservation biologists need to be
Organizations have to face many challenges in modern era. The same is the position in schools and collages as they are also organizations. To meet the challenges like competition, efficient and economical uses of sources and maximum output, knowledge of management and theories of management is basic requirement. Among Management Theories, Classical Management Theories are very important as .
