Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 55(2): 149-153, junho, 2011 Scientific fields that have made few technological and time efficient advances are slowly being phased out in many parts of the world, such as paleontology, taxonomy, and morphological systematics. Rather than promote these fields as essential to biological science, we instead fund new technologies that store taxonomic and morphological information, undercutting ourselves, to some degree, as systematists. Morphology and taxonomy are basic sciences that can be applied in a number of different ways within biology (ecology, cospeciation, etc.), but more is invested in applications and information technologies (databases, etc.) than in the general pursuit of knowledge (e.g. species discovery, relationships, classification). According to one reviewer (Flowers 2007: 5), database initiatives that have as primary goal the application of new technology to existing data, rather than generate new data, have "mopped up a not inconsiderable fraction of the available money during the Biodiversity Decade" (the 1990s). We agree with Flowers on that front, but more conceptual impediments to classification are what concern us here. We investigate some of these problems and identify present trends that are potentially damaging to systematics.The Information Boom and the Knowledge Bust. A certain degree of confusion exists between what constitutes information and knowledge: "Our view is that it would be a major retrograde step, disconnecting future taxonomy from the wealth of knowledge that has been built up and indexed under the Linnaean system" (Godfray et al. 2007: 954).