What really hampers taxonomy and conservation? A riposte to Garnett and Christidis (2017)

Abstract

Responding to purported taxonomic anarchy, in an article published in the widely read journal Nature, Garnett & Christidis (2017) [hereafter GC] opined on the need for "standardized global species lists", at the behest of conservationists, and proposed the construction of a judicial committee to "restrict … freedom of taxonomic action" and promote taxonomic stability. Here we reflect on this perspective and contest that the view of GC conflicts with some basic and indisputable principles underpinning the philosophy of science, most notably: it must be free. They appear to believe that taxonomic revisions should be based on political, economic and conservation concerns, and they treat species as fixed real entities, instead of refutable scientific hypotheses. In addition to such theoretical misconceptions, GC did not consider important practical aspects of what they term taxonomic anarchy, most significantly the participation of conservationists as authors of taxonomic works, and the importance of alternative management units, a well-established discussion in conservation biology.

Taxonomy as tyranny

“…Having myself sought to create such boundaries (Tobias et al 2010) and ended essays on the same point about law (Collar 1997(Collar , 2013, I naturally warm to Garnett & Christidis for their unflinching forthrightness, but I suspect that many members of the avian taxonomic communitysee Raposo et al (2017) for early evidencewill sense the spectre of tyranny ('restrict the freedom of taxonomic action'!) animating so revolutionary an idea as a single global authority to pass judgement on their work.…”

Mammalian species and the twofold nature of taxonomy: a comment on Taylor et al. 2019

“…This and other publications dealing with the inherent limitations of taxonomy (e.g. Zachos et al 2013, Zachos 2018a) stir reactions that appear to follow a common pattern: an outcry from the taxonomic community who consider that we disparage taxonomy as a science, insist that taxonomy is a hypothesis-driven discipline and claim that our views threaten the freedom of scientific research (see the comments on in the correspondence section of Nature as well as Raposo et al 2017, Thomson et al 2018, Gippoliti 2019. These arguments generally miss the key points in our various publications (Garnett and Christidis 2018a,b).…”

Values, regulation, and species delimitation

“…A centralized authority organising debate between and input from these different stakeholders would be in a good position to ensure this is the case. In light of the worries of Raposo et al (2017) and Thomson et al (2018, 8), who claim that regulation and fixation of species delimitation go against the "dynamic nature of taxonomic progress", it is worth pointing out here that such centralized regulation is importantly dissimilar from the regulation that characterized Lysenkoism. While in the latter, debate was not tolerated and dissenting scientists could end up in the Gulags, a centralized authority as proposed by GC would encourage and organize debate and arguments from all points of view.…”

“…If anything, this is hard to evaluate without a detailed plan of how the proposal is to be developed in practice. As Raposo et al (2017) and Thomson et al (2018) point out, there are other viable solutions, such as using alternative management units for conservation purposes or adapting conservation legislation, that seem to avoid some of the severe practical problems of GC's proposal (e.g. adding another layer of bureaucracy, diverting funding from already under-funded taxonomic research, etc.).…”