Parataxonomy vs. taxonomy in biodiversity studies – pitfalls and applicability of ‘morphospecies’ sorting

Limitations and Applications of Parataxonomy for Community Forest Management in Southwestern Amazonia

“…Recent studies examining the integration of local peoples and their traditional knowledge into biodiversity conservation have debated the utility of parataxonomy, or the identification of biological specimens by local personnel that have not received formal training in taxonomy and systematics (Basset et al 2000, Janzen 1993, Krell 2004, Oliver & Beattie 1996. Parataxonomy has been championed because of a growing recognition that descriptive taxonomy has been losing both funding and prestige in recent years, resulting in shortages of personnel and finances (Godfray 2002, Oliver & Beattie 1996.…”

“…Several authors have cautioned that the benefits of parataxonomy, such as increased efficiency and comprehensiveness of collections, may be offset by the error incurred when the information is not verified by professional taxonomists (Basset et al 2004, Krell 2004, Oliver & Beattie 1996. Two major criticisms have surfaced.…”

“…First, some have questioned the replicability of the sorting process wherein organisms are divided into discrete groups sharing morphological features (often referred to as morphospecies or recognizable taxonomic units, RTUs; hereafter referred to as parataxonomic units, PUs, after Krell (2004)). Because much of this work is done outside of the traditional taxonomy system associated with museum collections holding type specimens or species descriptions, hypotheses of PU assignation may be erroneous and are often unable to be tested (Krell 2004). Two types of errors can occur during sorting.…”

“…Frequently, subtle distinctions in morphology are overlooked, and multiple similar taxa are lumped into a single parataxonomic unit (Basset et al 2004, Oliver & Beattie 1993. Conversely, when large numbers of samples are encountered, or when persons with different training share work on a sample, single taxonomic species may be split into multiple PUs (Krell 2004, Oliver & Beattie 1993.…”

“…A second criticism raised for parataxonomy is that the naming of sorted samples is not standardized as with taxonomic binomials (Krell 2004). Sorting personnel may use different naming systems because of differences in language, training and/or regional customs.…”