Memorandum submitted by the Dr Henry Disney
Ph.D
In response to the Draft call for evidence:
Systematics research and Taxonomy for the House of Lords Science
and Technology Committee, I give below some personal observations,
rather than a more systematic review, as I have been campaigning
for many years on this subject but to no avail.
I made two submissions to the early 1990's House
of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Systematic
Biology Research—
Disney, R. H. L., 1991. Evidence from Dr R.
H. L. Disney, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge.
House of Lords session 1990-91 Select Committee on Science
and Technology Systematic Biology Research. Written evidence received
up to 21st May 1991. HL paper 41. London: HMSO. Pp. 71-73.Disney,
R. H. L., 1992. Evidence from the University of Cambridge, Department
of Zoology. House of Lords session 1991-92 Select Committee
on Science and Technology Systematic Biology Research. Volume
II Oral evidence and written evidence received after 21st May
1991. HL Paper 22-II. London: HMSO. P. 305.
The result has been an insufficient balance
between the support for the three main branches of taxonomy.
1.
Alpha Taxonomy deals with the recognition of species,
the description of new species and the production of identification
key.
2.
Beta taxonomy is concerned with the production of
classifications of the species into genera, families, orders etc.
based on the discovery of their evolutionary (phylogenetic) affinities.
3.
Gamma taxonomy is concerned with sub specific taxa
(subspecies, polymorphisms, ecotypes, etc).
While the extra funds for Beta Taxonomy, mainly
for molecular phylogenetics, was a most welcome outcome resulting
from the 1990's report, along with the use of molecular data in
Gamma Taxonomy, the support for Alpha Taxonomy has got worse.
The study of Alpha Taxonomy is essential for Biodiversity assessments
and conservation evaluation as well as in relation to pathogenic
organisms, pests, vectors of parasitic infections, insects, etc.,
in forensic cases and the use of biological control agents.
I have continued to highlight the plight of
Alpha Taxonomy:- Disney, R. H. L. 1993. Systematic biology research.
Linnean 9: 14-17. Disney, R. H. L., 1996e. The extinction
of the lesser funded taxonomist. Science & Public Affairs
1996(3): 4-5.Disney, R. H. L., 1998a. Growing dearth of taxonomists.
Biologist 45:6.Disney, R. H. L., 1998b. The naming game.
New Scientist 2130: 53.Disney, R. H. L., 1998e. Rescue
plan needed for taxonomy. Nature, London 394: 120.Disney,
R. H. L., 1999a. The plight of taxonomy. Biologist 46:
6-7.Disney, R. H. L., 1999b. Insect biodiversity and the demise
of alpha taxonomy. Antenna 23: 84-88. Disney, R. H. L.,
2000b. The relentless decline of taxonomy. Science & Public
Affairs October 2000: 6.Disney, R. H. L., 2002j. Alpha taxonomy.
Sherkin Comment 32: 14.
Disney, R. H. L. & Durska, E. In press. Conservation
evaluation and the choice of faunal taxa to sample. Biodiversity
and Conservation
While the response has been sympathy and agreement,
the funding of Alpha Taxonomy has continued its decline. Thus
in my own field of entomology, the majority of specialists on
large families of small insects are now retired professionals
(like myself) and amateurs. Most of the latter tend to be parochial
(eg only studying the British species of a family). With regard
to funding support for professionals, before retirement from 1984
until 1998 I was entirely funded by private trusts. Every application
to NERC was turned down, despite precisely the same applications
being funded by a private trust (eg Leverhulme, Isaac Newton Trust,
etc.). NERC would have funded the use of molecular data to solve
problems (such as sibling species versus polymorphism) but NOT
the basic research that would reveal such problems in the first
place!
Since retirement I have existed on small grants
and occasional fees for undertaking forensic work. The result
is that I cannot afford the use of molecular methods unless a
collaborator has funding. Likewise I now rarely use the Scanning
Electron Microscope because of the cost. I have virtually ceased
to attend scientific meetings because of the costs involved.
With regard to my standing as an entomologist,
I am recognised as a world specialist on the scuttle flies (Diptera:
Phoridae), which are the ultimate in biodiversity in that the
larvae exhibit a greater range of larval habits than any other
family of insects that have ever existed. My driving force has
been a desire to advance knowledge of these habits, but in order
to do so, I have had to undertake an immense amount of Alpha Taxonomy
as the family has long been notorious for the complexities of
species recognition. The result is that I have published more
than most: and collaborated with more co-authors (mainly field
workers) than most. I summarise my publications record thus:
| | |
|
| Sole authorship papers | 297
| Phoridae publications | 374
|
| Joint authorship papers | 146
| Other | 69 |
| Total | 443 | All scientific publications
| 443 |
| |
| |
I currently have two dozen papers in press.
In addition I have tried to encourage ecology based on sound
taxonomy by being co-founder and co-editor of the acclaimed Naturalists'
Handbooks series (see below). I have also been a founder member
of the Field Studies Council AIDGAP scheme that produces user-friendly
identification keys.
I trust these highly personal comments will serve to illustrate
that, despite not receiving a penny from NERC, I have tried to
make a contribution to Alpha Taxonomy—which is the branch
of taxonomy that is increasingly starved of funds. Other advances,
such as web-based keys and catalogues are most welcome, but increasingly
they tend to ignore the fact that the majority of species remain
unknown to science.
Naturalists' Handbooks
Founded and edited by Dr S. A. Corbet and Dr R. H. L. DisneyInitially
published by Cambridge University Press but subsequently published
by the Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd for the Company of Biologists1.
Insects on nettles. By B. N. K. Davis. 1983. Second edition 1991.2.
Grasshoppers. By Valerie K. Brown. 1983.3. Solitary wasps. By
Peter F. Yeo & Sarah A. Corbet. 1983. Second edition 1995.4.
Insects on thistles. By Margaret Redfern. 1983. Second edition
1995.5. Hoverflies. By Francis S. Gilbert. 1986. Second edition
1993.6. Bumblebees. By Oliver E. Prs-Jones & Sarah A. Corbet.
1987. Second edition 1991.7. Dragonflies. By Peter L. Miller.
1987. Second edition 1995.8. Common ground beetles. By Trevor
G. Forsythe. 1987. Second edition 2000.9. Animals on seaweed.
By Peter J. Hayward. 1988.10. Ladybirds. By Michael Majerus &
Peter Kearns. 1989.11. Aphid predators. By Graham E. Rotheray.
1989.12. Animals of the surface film. By Marjorie Guthrie. 1989.13.
Mayflies. By Janet Harker. 1989.14. Mosquitoes. By Keith R. Snow.
1990.15. Insects, plants and microclimate. By D. M. Unwin &
Sarah A. Corbet. 1991.16. Weevils. By M. G. Morris. 1991.17. Plant
galls. By Margaret Redfern & R. R. Askew. 1992. Second edition
1998. 18. Insects on cabbages and oilseed rape. By William D.
J. Kirk. 1992.19. Pollution monitoring with lichens. By D. H.
S. Richardson. 1992.20. Microscopic life in Sphagnum. By
Marjorie Hingley. 1993.21. Animals of sandy shores. By Peter J.
Hayward. 1994.22. Animals under logs and stones. By C. Philip
Wheatear & Helen J. Read. 1996.23. Blowflies. By Zakaria Erzinclioglu.
1996.24. Ants. By Gary J. Skinner & Geoffrey W. Allen. 1996.25.
Thrips. By William D. J. Kirk. 1996.26. Insects on dock plants.
By David T. Salt & John B. Whittaker. 1998.27. Insects on
cherry trees. By Simon R. Leather & Keith P. Bland. 1999.28.
Studying invertebrates. By C. Philip Wheater & Penny A. Cook.
2003.
29. Aphids on deciduous trees. By Tony Dixon & Thomas
Thieme. 2007
20 December 2007
| 
