Money, Morphology and Molecules. Some comments on Wortley, Bennett and Scotland (2002), Taxonomy and phylogeny reconstruction: two distinct research agendas in systematics. (see p. 335 of this issue)

Abstract

The state of systematics, for convenience here divided into taxonomy (the delimitation, description and inventory of species) and phylogeny reconstruction, is evaluated. Molecular systematics may seem overemphasized, but the resulting gains made in our understanding of relationships in a relatively short time are very considerable. Although morphological data currently play only a limited role in detecting large-scale phylogenetic pattern, the analysis by Wortley et al. of the role morphology has played in the past is not easily interpreted. At species level, it is unclear what effect molecular techniques will have on our understanding of species limits, but it is likely to be considerable. Although taxonomy is both essential and underfunded, there seems little point in asking for more money until we can justify the limits of the species we describe more clearly and until we have cleared up the impediments that so much slow the practice of taxonomy. Business cannot remain as usual if any of the grand inventory projects we have started are to be finished within a reasonable time, or even to be of much use when they are.