[Taxacom] more confusion over Costello et al. (online, 2011)

Fri May 18 19:20:29 CDT 2012

thanks to Mark for the partial clarification ... but I am still scratching my head over some *important* points:
?
(1) I still doubt somewhat that Mark fully grasps the fact that, imperfect as it may be in some regards, WoRMS is actually an unprecedentedly comprehensive resource for marine biodiversity data, the likes of which simply does not exist for terrestrial data. This fact, which is of course in itself a good thing, does however mesh badly with the fact that CoL uses WoRMS for its marine data, but has to scratch around for bits and bobs of terrestrial data, in the absence of WoRTS!! This creates a massive data bias. The data is massive skewed, in terms of reliability, in favour of marine species, but most global biodiversity is terrestrial!
?
(2) the problem in the paper, as I see it,?is not with reporting the "findings" as such, it is with the mysterious connections between these findings and the overall conclusions, which seem to be to bear little relation to the "findings" upon which they are based. I cannot see any basis for claiming that novel terrestrial biodiversity is becoming harder to find...
?
(3) if the rate of description of nonmarines has been roughly constant ("similar") since the 1950's, then how do you get from this an estimate of overall global diversity???
?
(3) the major issue that concerns me is not so much with the paper itself, but with the way others are citing it. I have seen it cited twice recently, both times inappropriately in my opinion. The Wheeler et 30 als paper straightworwardly got is arse about face and quoted it as saying that we only know a quarter of what is really out there, when in fact it said that we already know 3 quarters! The Samyn and De Clerk paper, on the other hands,?cites it as saying that rates for terrestrial species have remained roughly constant since WW2, which the paper may have said, but it is so very?unclear how this statement relates to the overall conclusions and other statements in?Costello et al., that massive clarification is needed before?one can have any confidence at all that this?apparent finding bears any resemblance to reality, particularly given my comments above about CoL only having *extremely* scrappy terrestrial data.
?
clearly, it is not the fault of an author if their paper is cited inappropriately by others! Nevertheless, we should all perhaps take great care when?writing or citing papers with potential implications for global conservation issues ...
?
Stephen?

From: Mark J. Costello <markcost at gmail.com>
To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; 'Cristian Ruiz Altaba' <cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es> 
Cc: m.costello at auckland.ac.nz; "'TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU. EDU'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be 
Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2012 4:06 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] more confusion over Costello et al. (online, 2011)

Dear Stephen and others,

Thank you for the discussion. 

In our paper, figure 2 (please email me for a pdf if anybody wants a copy) shows an increased number of marine species being discovered per year since the 1950's. [Note more recent data shows the apparent decline in the last decade was an artefact of the delay in getting new species into WoRMS; thus the trend of more marine species being discovered continues.] Evidently, this is a most productive time for marine species discovery. 

For terrestrial and freshwater species from CoL the trend is different and the rate of description has been similar since the 1950's. However, for both CoL and WoRMS data the number of people describing species has been increasing since the 1950's (Figure 2), and the number of species per author has been decreasing (Figure 3). I think our paper accurately reports the findings. I was just as surprised by these results as others are, and they certainly caused me to reflect for a long time before publication. 

Best regards,
Mark m.costello at auckland.ac.nz 

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2012 7:53 p.m.
To: Cristian Ruiz Altaba
Cc: m.costello at auckland.ac.nz; TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU. EDU; yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] more confusion over Costello et al. (online, 2011)

on the one hand, he who has too many enemies should look to the mirror for the blame, but, on the other hand, truth isn't determined by democratic vote, and if there is one thing that can unite the many, it is being wrong about something, and/or being largely motivated by self-interest ... in the end it may all come down merely to the "spin" we choose to put on our own ignorance ...
Stephen
From: Cristian Ruiz Altaba <cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: Alastair Culham <a.culham at reading.ac.uk>; "m.costello at auckland.ac.nz" <m.costello at auckland.ac.nz>; "TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU. EDU" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be" <yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be> 
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2012 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] more confusion over Costello et al. (online, 2011)

Well, maybe I have always been dead wrong, in which case a number of individuals will be very happy. However, I have always thought that descriptive taxonomy IS indeed hard science. The quality of a scientific work will be assessed in ways that are not too different from those that artwork or literature experience --good stuff prevails. We should'nt fall into the trap of impact factors and the like: taxonomy is to be evaluated in its own worth. A different issue is how to make taxonomy visible and valuable to society at large. Here I disagree with many recent opinions, such as the obtruse paper by Wheeler et [many] et al., so there is a distinct possibility that everybody else is right and I am wrong.

Sincerely,

Cristian

Cristian R. Altaba
DG Medi Natural, Educaci? Ambiental i Canvi Clim?tic
Conselleria d'Agricultura, Medi Ambient i Territori
Govern de les Illes Balears

-----taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu escribi?: -----

Para: Alastair Culham <a.culham at reading.ac.uk>
>De: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>Enviado por: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Fecha: 17/05/2012 01:05
>cc: "m.costello at auckland.ac.nz" <m.costello at auckland.ac.nz>, "TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU. EDU" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be" <yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be>
>Asunto: Re: [Taxacom] more confusion over Costello et al. (online, 2011)
>
>clearly though, willy nilly citation for the only purpose of promoting taxonomy is not ethical ... any citation must at least be warranted and the cited source should at least say what it is claimed to say ...
> 
>descriptive taxonomy *isn't* science in quite the same sense as other science, and there is little point pretending that it is (a single specimen which has 2 hooks on its aedeagus instead of 1 will always be described as a new species, all other things being equal, and there ain't a lot of "science" in that!)
> 
>just because it isn't science doesn't devalue descriptive taxonomy, as there are many other valuable things that are worth doing, not *just* science
> 
>Stephen
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Alastair Culham <a.culham at reading.ac.uk>
>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
>Cc: "TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU. EDU" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "m.costello at auckland.ac.nz" <m.costello at auckland.ac.nz>; "yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be" <yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be> 
>Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 8:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] more confusion over Costello et al. (online, 2011)
>
>
>The Samyn and De Clerk paper contains a very important statement that perhaps deserves highlighting: 
>
>another underestimated part of the problem is that most taxonomists sensu Joppa et al., that is ?those individuals who describe new species? can only devote a fraction of their time on the description of new species. apart from the multitude of tasks that refrains many from inventorying and describing biodiversity, taxonomists also face a hypothesis driven scientific system that is ruled by Impact Factors or other metrics. This reality seduces many taxonomists to publish an ecological, evolutionary or biogeographic story rather than descriptive taxonomic papers. 
>The real impediment to the description of new species is not necessarily the availability of people with the knowledge and skills to do it but the fact that it is widely accepted in biological journals that a species name can be used without citing the original description.? 
>
>A new species is an original idea in the same way that a new phylogenetic hypothesis might be - it is formed through the process: data, data analysis, results, discussion, conclusion.? The hypothesis is: this sample (group of samples) is distinguishable from other known samples at a level that fits a concept of what a species is.? Clumsy wording and I'm sure someone else can do better.? The reality is that new species descriptions allow new work in all fields of organismal biology and help improve the understanding of ecology, phylogeny etc.? 
>
>Many readers of this list edit journals.? I would appeal to those editors to ensure species descriptions are cited to properly acknowledge the science that led to the descriptions.? That way descriptive taxonomy will have the same standing as other branches of biology and citations, impact factors, H factors and the rest will all follow.? There is an opportunity to put basic taxonomy back at the top table in science but we need to support ourselves and realise we have some control over that future. 
>
>Action points: cite references to all species you use in a paper and insist as an editor or referee that such citations go in.? 
>
>We are in an under-cited discipline and the solution is at least partially in our own hands.
>
>Alastair
>
>P.S. Catalogue of Life does not claim to be taxonomically authoritative, it is simply trying to offer a platform for component databases to offer their view of a taxonomic group, and to provide a management classification for navigation purposes.? Wherever there are two taxonomists there will be at least two differing opinions :-)
>
>On 16 May 2012, at 02:24, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>This new paper: 
>> 
>>Samyn, Y.; De Clerck, O. 2012: No name, no game. European journal of taxonomy, (10): 1-3. doi: 10.5852/ejt.2012.10
>> 
>>cites Costello et al. (online 2011), just for the following issue: [quote]Contradicting the findings of Joppa et al. (2011) and using a much broader taxon sampling, which includes many poorly studied groups, Costello et al. (2011) observe that species description has roughly remained constant since the second World War, at least for terrestrial species.[unquote]
>> 
>>Well I can't say what Costello et al. "observe", but this is what they said (in the abstract): [quote]We found that trends in the rate of description of 580,000 marine and terrestrial species, in the taxonomically authoritative World Register of Marine Species and Catalogue of Life databases, were similar until the 1950s. Since then, the relative number of marine to terrestrial species described per year has increased, reflecting the less explored nature of the oceans. From the mid-19th century, the cumulative number of species described has been linear, with the highest number of species described in the decade of 1900, and fewer species described and fewer authors active during the World Wars. There were more authors describing species since the 1960s, indicating greater taxonomic effort. There were fewer species described per author since the 1920s, suggesting it has become more difficult to discover new species.[unquote]
>> 
>>They (Costello et al.) do say: [quote]Following the World Wars, the number of species described [per year?] increased, and continued to increase after the 1950s for marine, but not other species[unquote]
>> 
>>Is it just me, or does none of this make any real sense?? If, as it is claimed, it has become more difficult to discover new species (based on rates of species description), then the number of species described per year cannot have increased, nor even stayed constant, but must have decreased significantly!! Since the rate of description of marine species has allegedly increased, the rate of description of terrestrial species must have decreased markedly for this to make any sense!!
>> 
>>To go back to [quote]There were fewer species described per author since the 1920s, suggesting it has become more difficult to discover new species.[unquote]. This is surely a confusion? If they meant per year, rather than per author, then it might be a valid inference, but if they really do mean per author, then that could just be because there are more authors, each describing fewer species, which says absolutely nothing about how hard or otherwise it has become to discover new species!
>> 
>>Again, it must be noted that CoL is least "taxonomically authoritative" for terrestrial taxa, and this data bias is highly relevant to the present issue!
>> 
>>The real issue here is about citation. You can't just go citing publications will nilly for things that it isn't even at all clear they said! Since citation is used as a value measure for publications (which it shouldn't be), citations should only be made after careful consideration ... 
>> 
>>Stephen
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>Taxacom Mailing List
>>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>>
>>(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>>(2) a Google search specified as:? site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom? your search terms here
>>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
>(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>(2) a Google search specified as:? site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom? your search terms here
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:? site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom? your search terms here