Memorandum by the European Mycological
Association
This evidence has been prepared specifically
for this enquiry and is submitted on a corporate basis by the
European Mycological Association (EMA) which is the learned
scientific society representing mycology in Europe within the
IUBS (International Union of Biological Science) framework. The
Association has members in 37 European countries including the
UK and seeks to cover all aspects of mycology in Europe.
Summary. Systematic mycology underwrites many
fields of science and technology, including biodiversity conservation,
climate change, ecology and the pharmaceutical industry. Despite
impressive contributions, particularly in web-based taxonomy,
the UK is losing its historical world-leader position in this
field: systematic mycology is much better funded in many other
countries. Without immediate action, fungal systematics and taxonomy
in the UK will be extinct within ten years. Systematic mycology
is currently totally absent from the UK education system. Skills
are not adequate for current needs and numbers of experts have
declined catastrophically. Funding is very urgently needed to
train a new generation of systematists. It is in the interest
of the state to provide that funding.
THE STATE
OF SYSTEMATICS
AND TAXONOMY
RESEARCH
Question 1. What is the state of systematics
research and taxonomy in the UK? What are the current research
priorities? What are the barriers, if any, to delivering these
priorities?
1.1. The state of systematics and taxonomy
research in mycology in the UK. To be blunt, the state is
dire. Without vigorous and immediate intervention, fungal systematics
as a professional scientific activity will be extinct in the UK
within ten years. The level of systematics and taxonomy research
on fungi in the UK was more or less stable up to 1992 (ironically
the year of the Rio Convention). Since then, it has declined catastrophically.
The decline has continued and perhaps even accelerated since the
previous House of Lords report. There are now, effectively, no
fungal systematists (and this includes lichenology) employed in
UK universities. Staff have not been replaced in Government institutions.
Both remaining mycologists in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew are
near retirement. In the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, the situation
is perhaps slightly better, but numbers are still very small.
The world-leading International Mycological Institute (CABI) ceased
to exist in 1998. The number of mycologists within CABI has declined
and their average age has increased dramatically: in 1977, there
were 15 mycologists, average age 42 (some younger, some older);
these figures were the same in 1992; there are now 3 mycologists
employed by CABI with an average age of 55. These remaining mycologists
spend most of their time in project management, in compiling or
editing publications which review the work of others, and in preparing
project proposals: time allocated for research is negligible.
Printed research output has declined significantly (the CABI series
Mycological Papers is a good example: 16 numbers published
during the 1980s, 12 in the 1990s, 1 since 2000 and the series
has now been discontinued). Most papers on fungal taxonomy from
UK sources now come from retired staff and knowledgeable amateurs.
1.2. Current research priorities.
This is largely a "wants" list: without trained systematic
mycologists to do the work, research priorities are meaningless.
1.2.1. Provide meaningful and usable information
on-line about fungal diversity. For taxonomic mycology, this is
perhaps the highest priority, making sure that people working
with biodiversity conservation, climate change and similar topics
have easy access to understandable information about when and
where fungi occur.
1.2.2. Continued descriptive "alpha
taxonomy". In mycology, there is general agreement that less
than 10 per cent of the world's estimated 1.5 million fungal species
have so far been described (the figure most widely cited being
about 5 per cent): new species can still be found within a 100
km radius of the centre of London.
1.2.3. Re-evaluate taxonomies below ordinal
level in the light of molecular work. 2007 saw the publication
of major US-funded work providing for the first time a classification
of the fungi down to ordinal level based on molecular information.
The availability of this classification provides an important
new opportunity.
1.2.4. Production of monographs with identification
keys. Most taxonomic orders of fungi lack recent monographic treatment.
This is the equivalent, for animals, of saying that there are
no recent monographs of carnivores, cetaceans, insectivores, marsupials,
pinnipeds, rodents etc.
1.2.5. Carry out missing research taken for
granted in other biological groups. Taxonomic topics adequately
studied in botany and zoology (chromosome numbers, developmental
biology, electron microscope studies, molecular work etc. etc.)
have invariably been much more poorly covered in mycology because
this branch of biology has suffered long-term under-funding: there
is a huge amount of catching up to do.
1.2.6. Provide taxonomic support for studies
of the "nano-world". There are different levels of biosphere
studies: from the space and macro-levels which are easily visible,
down through the micro-level. Molecular biologists, biochemists
and ecologists are now taking their research down to the smallest
levels in the expectation of new practical discoveries and insights
into biosphere function. They need taxonomic expertise, particularly
of the fungi, which are an important part of that "nano-world".
1.3. Barriers. There are a lot of
barriers. The following list is not exhaustive.
1.3.1. Very poor public awareness of the
unique status and importance of fungi. Fungi belong in their own
separate biological kingdom. They are not animals or plants, and
they do not fit into the vague and generalized category of micro-organism.
But without them, life as we know it on this planet would not
be possible. Despite a campaign by the British Mycological Society,
there is, more or less, no teaching about fungi in the national
school curriculum. The result is that future voters, politicians,
senior civil servants and other decision-makers come out of school
with no knowledge that fungi even exist, let alone that they might
be important.
1.3.2. No human resources to do the work.
There are no undergraduate or postgraduate degree courses in mycology:
no specialist mycologists are being trained (and there will very
soon be nobody to train them). In any case, there are currently
no jobs to be had in systematic mycology in the UK. There are
not enough existing systematic mycologists to maintain even a
basic infrastructure of the science—leading scientific societies,
editing publications, refereeing manuscripts, maintaining websites,
curating collections etc.
1.3.3. Vicious synergy. The poor awareness
of fungi and the absence of human resources combine to produce
a cycle of decline. Mycologists are not consulted when decisions
are being made about allocating resources (because there are no
mycologists to consult). As a result, fungi are not prioritized.
There are then fewer funds for mycological research (but unless
urgent action is taken, there will soon be no mycologists to apply
for them anyway).
1.3.4. Projects with misleading titles. Projects
and initiatives with titles which imply broad taxonomic coverage
give the impression that all groups—including fungi—are
being covered. That includes any project with a title containing
the word "biodiversity" or "ecology" and no
further qualification—for example the "Heritage Biodiversity
Library". But fungi are not covered by such projects unless
at least one mycologist is explicitly included as part of the
project team, and that is almost never the case. The result is
that funding agencies suppose the work on fungi has been done,
and will not later fund mycologists who apply to complete the
forgotten fungal component. Such projects unintentionally seriously
undermine mycology. Funding agencies need to be alerted, so that
any project with such a title is not approved unless a mycologist
is involved.
Question 2. What is the role of systematics
and taxonomy and, in particular, in what way do they contribute
to research areas such as biodiversity conservation, ecosystem
services and climate change? How important is this contribution
and how is it recognised in the funding process? How is systematics
integrated in other areas of research?
2.1. The role of fungal systematics and
taxonomy. These aim to describe and classify the fungi in
ways which reflect the natural relations they have with each other,
particularly in terms of their evolution. They also seek to provide
means of identifying fungal species. Unlike plants, for example,
most fungal species are still undiscovered and undescribed, and
identification of species remains difficult. Although molecular
techniques are increasingly used, they are in any case strongly
dependent on correct identification of the sequences with which
they are being compared.
2.2. Contribution to biodiversity conservation.
UK fungal taxonomists played a key role in establishing the movement
for fungal conservation in Europe and beyond, and continue to
play key roles in that movement. In the last six years, they have
also been involved in producing checklists for the UK basidiomycetes
and for all fungi in the Caribbean, and in developing for Cuba
a national strategy for conservation of fungi. They are providing
the ascomycete component of the IUCN Sampled Red List Index project
establishing baseline data for different groups of organisms for
the Rio 2010 objectives (IUCN-compatible conservation status evaluations
for 1500 randomly sampled species), and have set up major websites
providing access to substantial databases about fungi worldwide
(further information below). Biodiversity hotspots have generally
been identified on the basis of bird, mammal, insect or plant
diversity. Fungal diversity has not been taken into account. There
is increasing evidence, however, that hotspots for fungal diversity
are often very different places. Temperate conifer forests, for
example, are not typically considered biodiversity hotspots, but
there are well over 1000 species of fungi associated with Scots
pine alone—maybe half of them known only from pines, and
over 200 known only from Scots pine—and the list is far
from complete. Very different areas are likely to be identified
as biodiversity hotspots when fungi are taken into account. Molecular
identifications are accessible only to commercial organizations
with the resources to pay the high costs involved. Biodiversity
research, particularly in poorer countries, does not have such
resources, but can generally cover the costs of traditional taxonomists,
who are therefore critical in this field. One further point: there
is still a tendency for people working with biodiversity conservation
to regard fungi as part of the problem rather than as part of
the solution (for example, the view that it is necessary to protect
a rare plant species from fungal disease when the disease itself
may occur only on that plant and may be even more rare). Fungi
are rarely taken into account when devising nature reserve management
plans. Fungal conservationists are trying to address these problems
through education.
2.3. Contribution to research on ecosystem
services. Fungi occur in all ecosystems, including the oceans
and extreme environments such as Antarctica. Assessing ecosystems
without taking into account the fungi is like taking care of computer
boxes but not the chips inside. Yet major pieces of work continue
to be published considering ecology and climate change without
any mention of the fungi (see "Projects with misleading titles"
above). Fungi play a phenomenally important role in ecosystem
services, for example in recycling of carbon and mineral nutrients.
They are also major factors as symbionts ensuring plant and animal
health or agents causing plant and animal diseases. They furthermore
are valuable indicators of ecosystem stability and of environmental
pollution. The continuing very limited understanding of their
exact roles in these areas combined with difficulty in identifying
them (many are undescribed species) means taxonomic support is
critical if this work is to be done in a meaningful manner.
2.4. Contribution to research on climate
change. Fungi will surely be critically important in climate
change: today's plant diseases of France, for example, may be
England's plant diseases of tomorrow. The ability of many fungi
to disperse long distances by airborne spores makes these organisms
particularly able to exploit such changes, and changes in distribution
of invasive fungi may be expected to occur naturally as a result
of climate change: some will be invasive, others "refugees".
Climate change may also cause some indigenous species currently
rare (and quite possibly also unknown to science) to become extinct,
and others to become more abundant and cause problems for humankind:
the sudden spread of Phytophthora ramorum, the chromistan
"fungus" causing sudden oak death, may be a good example.
Those researching climate change, like those involved with biodiversity
research, are unlikely to have the resources to pay for molecular
identification. Websites showing known distributions of fungi
(see below) will be very important in monitoring changes of distribution.
2.5. Importance of these contributions.
If the fungi are not factored into research on biodiversity conservation,
ecological services, climate change and similar themes, the scientific
results are likely to be defective. The contribution by systematic
mycologists in achieving this could be potentially enormous, but
it is necessary to have these scientists in the first place.
2.6. Recognition by the funding process.
The EMA endorses CABI's view that, for fungi, the approach by
funding agencies seems to be "out of sight, out of mind",
and that, as fungi are considered difficult to work with, they
should get higher levels of funding to compensate for the technical
challenges. For systematic mycology to survive, positive discrimination
in funding is necessary.
2.7. Integration in other areas of research.
Fungi are also key players in applied areas, including biodegradation,
biodeterioration, biological control, forensic science, human
health and pharmaceuticals. Because these areas tend to be better
resourced, molecular identifications are starting to be used.
Commercial companies working in these areas cannot be relied on
to maintain systematic mycology: within the last five years, a
case occurred where one company, having found a promising fungal
product, promptly fired its mycologists to divert that money to
product development.
Question 3. Does the way in which systematics
research is organised and co-ordinated best meet the needs of
the user community? What progress has been made in setting up
a body to lead on this? What contribution do the leading systematics
research institutions make both nationally and internationally?
3.1. Does organization of systematics
research meet the needs of the user community? The stark decline
in the UK's capacity for systematic mycology strongly suggests
that current organization and co-ordination of systematics research
in this field absolutely does not meet needs: Britain's historical
world-leader position in this area is now almost gone. The present
set up gives every appearance of failing in all respects.
3.2. A body to lead on co-ordination
of systematic research on the fungi. With the demise of the
International Mycological Institute in 1998, there is now no obvious
body to lead on such co-ordination: the botanic gardens of Kew
and Edinburgh hold national collections of fungi, but in the last
five years, both have removed all mention of fungi from their
mission statements; the Natural History Museum treats fungi as
part of botany; a recent Natural Environment Research Council
pamphlet on biodiversity failed to mention them at all; the British
Mycological Society has declined dramatically in membership numbers
over the past few years; from what used to be the Nature Conservancy,
Natural England (formerly English Nature) treats fungi as part
of botany; only Scottish National Heritage recognizes the fungi
as different, and so may be appropriate to lead in Scotland. Most
of these organizations are vulnerable to the criticism of failing
to discharge their duties in respect of at least one of the biological
kingdoms for which they are responsible.
3.3. National and international contributions
by leading systematics research institutions. CABI mycologists
still provide the three cornerstone publications which maintain
world fungal taxonomy: the Dictionary of the Fungi, Index
of Fungi and Bibliography of Systematic Mycology (further
discussed below), but without urgent and long-term support, it
is hard to see how they will continue for much longer. Other than
these, there is now only a trickle of published work new research
coming from the CABI mycologists. Mycologists in Edinburgh and
Kew continue to publish, but there is little or no work on fungi
(including lichens) coming out of the Natural History Museum.
The main opportunities for British systematic mycologists to contribute
nationally and internationally are currently through funding for
individual projects (for example the UK Darwin Initiative) and
through private dedication. Through these contributions, British
mycologists maintain two of the world's five most important websites
providing free access to taxonomic information about the fungi
(Cybertruffle—www.cybertruffle.org.uk and IndexFungorum—www.indexfungorum.org/Names/Names.asp).
The same British mycologists also hold influential positions in
or have influence with the European Council for Conservation of
Fungi, the European Mycological Association, the Encyclopaedia
of Life, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the
Taxonomic Databases Working Group.
Question 4. What level of funding would be
needed to meet the need for taxonomic information now and in the
future? Who should be providing this funding?
4.1. Levels of funding needed. If
systematic mycology in the UK is to be saved, immediate funding
is needed to train a new generation of mycologists before the
current professional mycologists vanish completely. This means
at least six fully-funded PhD studentships, plus the promise of
secure employment on completion of their degrees. It also means
funding Britain's remaining systematic mycologists—assuming
they are willing—for the time needed to supervise these
people. The number of remaining mycologists is now so low, that
probably overseas study would be necessary for some of the students.
The absence of systematic mycology at undergraduate and masters
level should be urgently addressed. Information about fungi should
be added to the school national curriculum. Urgent steps need
to be taken to ensure that the CABI fungal reference collections
and mycological library are secure (without such a library, production
of the Dictionary of the Fungi, Index of Fungi and
Bibliography of Systematic Mycology will be impossible).
Taxonomic information should, ideally, be free to the end user,
and the internet is a good medium for achieving this. In mycology,
British mycologists are world leaders in provision of high quality
information freely on the internet, but the two main websites
are very vulnerable: in each case only one person understands
how they function and there is no understudy. Secure long-term
financial support for these websites would be a key contribution.
4.2. Who should provide this funding.
The government. First and foremost, funding fungal taxonomy is
in the interest of the state. Systematic mycology does not bring
quick and easy money, but it is fundamental for a lot of other
fields. Skilled and experienced taxonomists working on difficult
groups of organisms are hard to find and easily lost, and with
them goes Britain's world-leader position. Fungal dried reference
collections, no less than art galleries and museums, are national
treasures and part of the nation's heritage. Living collections
are a national resource for discoveries, development of new technologies
and for protection of human, animal and plant health etc. British
Members of the EMA have commented that, compared with the costs
of a millennium dome, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the hosting
of Olympic games, the amounts needed to keep systematic mycology
alive in Britain are minimal. These modest amounts needed would
be government money well-spent.
Question 5. How does funding in other countries
compare? Could there be more international collaboration? If so,
what form should this collaboration take and how might it be achieved?
5.1. Funding levels compared. Britain
has moved from being adequately funded for systematic mycology
(in the 1970s) to very poorly funded (the present situation).
In some other parts of Europe the level of support is also not
so good and in some places it is declining. Systematic mycology
is, however, well funded in some European countries. In Russia
systematic mycology thrives, with a new Academy of Mycology (its
first congress, in 2002, resulted in an abstracts volume of about
450 pages) and many young mycologists (there are around 200 mycologists
currently involved in biodiversity, conservation and taxonomy
of fungi). Funding for systematic mycology in Sweden is good,
with admirable results. Under dynamic leadership, the Centraalbureau
voor Schimmelcultures (Netherlands) has stepped in to fill much
of the role which belonged to the former International Mycological
Institute up to 1998—a serious loss in scientific credibility
for UK mycology. Systematic mycology is continuing in Austria,
Germany, Spain and Poland. The USA has benefited from substantial
investment in taxonomy recently through its National Science Foundation.
British collaboration with their initiatives has been very restricted
as British mycologists do not qualify for US funding. There is
good support for mycology in Australia and New Zealand. Mycology
is vibrant in Brazil, China and Japan, with many young mycologists.
5.2. International collaboration.
As British systematic mycology fades, the remaining few taxonomists
are pressed to try to cover all aspects of the science, and this
is physically impossible. Research and development needs different
people of different skills and different attitudes and temperaments:
only diversity leads to prosperity. The very few British systematic
mycologists do, however, have an influence much larger than their
number might suggest. They are currently actively collaborating
with mycologists in at least the following countries: Argentina,
Armenia, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
Georgia, India, Kenya, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, USA, Venezuela.
5.3. Suitable forms of collaboration.
More international collaboration is possible. Limits are the low
number of British mycologists and to a lesser extent funding.
Important areas where international collaboration should proceed
are:
5.3.1. teaching (the passing on of existing
skills in fungal taxonomy before they are lost);
5.3.2. further development of international
freely-available internet resources in fungal taxonomy;
5.3.3. exchanges to bring overseas experts
in fungal taxonomy to Britain to help train the postgraduates
which are urgently needed (see above);
5.3.4. international involvement in collection
of new material, including field studies, with support for identification
and isolation of resulting specimens to enhance fungal reference
collections (in many African countries formerly administered by
Britain, new information about fungi suddenly ceased to be generated
when they became independent in the 1960s);
5.3.5. establishment of groups able to help
poorer countries develop national strategies for fungal diversity
conservation in line with the Rio Convention objectives;
5.3.6. development of groups with expertise
in mycological aspects of climate change;
5.3.7. development of additional specialist
international committees to promote conservation of fungi.
Question 6. What impact have developments
in DNA sequencing, genomics and other new technologies had on
systematics research? In what way has systematics embraced new
technologies and how can these research areas interact successfully
and efficiently?
6.1. The EMA supports the CABI statement
on this subject. Sequencing has revolutionized systematic
mycology in the last 5-10 years. The contribution of the UK has,
however, been minimal and has led to a substantial reduction in
its international influence. There is insufficient effort to integrate
morphological and molecular classifications, leading to duplication
of effort and the risk of 250 years of research being abandoned.
This is particularly important in respect of naming species and
organism groups; taxa are interpreted in different ways leading
to widespread confusion. The UK is ill-prepared for changes which
are coming in this field. Funding is needed to ensure postgraduate
students are taught sequencing techniques and have careers to
go to afterwards gathering molecular data from British fungal
reference collections: the current absence of funding means these
hugely important resources are not being properly exploited.
DATA COLLECTION,
MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE
AND DISSEMINATION
Question 7. Does the way in which taxonomic
data is collected, managed and maintained best meet the needs
of the user community? What is the state of local and national
recording schemes?
7.1. Management of taxonomic data.
The contribution by British mycologists to this aspect of taxonomy
is outstanding and globally recognized. The most important taxonomic
data for any group of organisms is the list of scientific names—if
that list is not kept up to date, nobody knows what has already
been described. In mycology, the CABI publications Dictionary
of the Fungi and Index of Fungi fulfil this role. The
Dictionary of the Fungi, now running to its tenth edition,
provides the world standard fungal taxonomy at generic level and
above. Index of Fungi is a high-quality paper publication
of global importance, but there are serious concerns among systematic
mycologists about its future, given that it is produced with no
external financial support. The internet-based nomenclator, IndexFungorum,
provides a huge resource of the older names, and if registration
of fungal names is ever adopted will probably supplant Index
of Fungi, but it is also vulnerable, being in the care of
a single mycologist nearing retirement. The second most important
source of taxonomic data is literature. The CABI publication Bibliography
of Systematic Mycology fulfils this role for new mycological
literature. The Cyberliber website (part of Cybertruffle)
is the mycological on-line equivalent of botany & zoology's
"Heritage Biodiversity Library". Over 125,000 scanned
images of pages of mycological literature are already freely accessible
from this site, which is growing rapidly and is fully integrated
with IndexFungorum. Information about the occurrence of
fungi worldwide is supplied on-line from two major websites based
in Britain: one is Robigalia (part of Cybertruffle),
and the other is the database of the IMI fungal dried reference
collection. Robigalia, in particular, provides information
in 9 different languages including Chinese, English, French, German,
Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. Collectively, all of the resources
discussed above give outstanding service to the user community.
In general, database systems designed for botany and zoology are
not suitable for mycological information, because they are unable
to record associated organisms (fungi, being heterotrophs, usually
grow on parts of other organisms). In botany and zoology, associated
organisms, such as fungi, are not generally noted, even though
they are essential ecosystem components. As a result, the databases
resulting from initiatives driven by botany and zoology, such
as GBIF, are very limited in what information they can supply
about ecological interactions, and they do not handle mycological
information so well as databases custom-designed for fungal information.
7.2. Local and national recording schemes.
Computerization of the British Mycological Society's foray records
database began in the early 1980s, and there are now well over
one million records digitized. The database is, however, also
vulnerable, being run by the same mycologist near retirement who
looks after IndexFungorum, again with no understudy. There
are many local recording schemes. In general, these use rather
simple database structures, but collect valuable data in significant
amounts. At least some of these are linked to the British Mycological
Society's database and from there to the National Biodiversity
Network gateway.
Question 8. What is the role of the major
regional museums and collections? How are taxonomic collections
curated and funded?
8.1. Role of museums and collections.
There is no museum or garden specifically devoted to the fungi.
At best there may be token displays in more general natural history
museums, though even this is not usual. The four internationally
important fungal dried reference collections in the UK are located
in CABI, Edinburgh, Kew and the Natural History Museum (lichen-forming
fungi only). They are major repositories of type specimens, and
are an invaluable record of the historical geographical and temporal
occurrence of fungi. This type of information is particularly
useful for biodiversity and climate change research. The collections
tend to complement each other rather than overlap. Chronic and
severe underfunding has meant that active curation of the CABI
fungal dried reference collection stopped several years ago, although
a small GBIF grant enabled key elements of its records to be computerized
and put on-line. Kew, by comparison, is actively curated. Only
small parts of the Kew and Edinburgh fungal collections have been
digitized. The CABI collection is arranged in alphabetical order.
The Kew fungal collection, by comparison, is arranged using the
Saccardo taxonomic system which was developed in the 19th century.
This is now significantly different from modern taxonomic opinion.
If, as has been mooted, the CABI and Kew collections are amalgamated,
these differences will cause many practical difficulties. In comparison
with the CABI, Edinburgh, Kew and Natural History Museum collections,
which are internationally important, other UK fungal dried reference
collections are small and play a more limited role. The collections
in Edinburgh, Kew and the Natural History Museum receive state
funding. The CABI dried reference collection and the CABI living
fungal collection (one of the largest in the world) receive no
external funding and cannot continue to support UK (and global)
mycology indefinitely under such conditions.
Question 9. What progress has been made in
developing a web-based taxonomy? How do such initiatives fit in
with meeting demand for systematics and taxonomy information?
How do UK-led initiatives fit in with international initiatives
and is there sufficient collaboration?
9.1. The British-based IndexFungorum
and Cybertruffle websites (together with the USDA fungal
databases website, the New Zealand Landcare fungal website and
Mycobank—run from the Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures
in the Netherlands) are the world's main mycological websites.
Collectively they are making significant steps towards a web-based
taxonomy, and they serve a huge volume of freely available systematics
and taxonomy information about the fungi, mostly but not entirely
in English (some of the Cybertruffle databases are multilingual).
The Cybertruffle databases are specifically designed to
make it easy for other websites to establish hyperlinks, a feature
used very effectively by IndexFungorum. In general, collaboration
is good. IndexFungorum, in particular, fits very closely
with English-language international initiatives.
Question 10. What needs to be done to ensure
that web-based taxonomy information is of high quality, reliable
and user-friendly?
10.1. In general, the web-based taxonomy
information delivered for mycology by Cybertruffle and
IndexFungorum is of a highly professional quality, given
the very limited resources available. Those resources are not
enough to develop a web-based taxonomy which is interactive, permitting
different experts to correct and update databases remotely—one
possible way of making the quality even higher. If this is wanted,
it will be necessary either to wait for international initiatives
outside the UK to develop suitable systems and eventually apply
them to mycology, or to provide financial support so that the
main UK-based websites can move in that direction. Further funding
is also necessary to improve reliability, which is currently dependent
on the dedication of individuals. Feedback from mycological users
suggests that both of these websites are already user-friendly.
Provision of information in the languages of different users makes
the Cybertruffle websites globally user-friendly in a unique
manner not duplicated by other taxonomic websites.
Question 11. How does the taxonomic community
engage with the non-taxonomic community? What role do field studies
play?
11.1. Not all taxonomists are naturally
good at communicating their interest and skills to the general
public. In systematic mycology, one outstanding communicator,
Prof. Roy Watling, has been retired for several years, and among
the few professional fungal taxonomists in the UK, none stands
out as a similar communicator. Prof. Stefan Buczacki, well known
from the BBC programme "Gardeners' question time" is
now probably the best known mycologist in the UK, but he is not
a systematist. UK taxonomic mycology needs someone with that sort
of ability in public relations to act as a publicist, drawing
attention to significant and interesting discoveries, and making
sure these reach television screens, radio and the pages of newspapers.
The general public is not, however, society's only non-taxonomic
community. In recent years, through a UK Darwin Initiative grant,
UK systematic mycologists have been working with the military
in the UK and Ukraine on management of training areas, and with
nature conservation organizations on preparation of reserve management
plans. Field studies have a strong potential role, but the tendency
in recent years has been for the British Mycological Society to
move in the direction of being a professional body rather than
a learned society—a controversial move which has tended
to discourage amateur membership, with a depressing effect on
attendance at field meetings.
SKILLS BASE
Question 12. What are the numbers and ages
of trained taxonomists working in UK universities and other organisations?
12.1. For mycology, probably zero in UK
universities and fewer than ten in other organizations.
Question 13. What is the state of training
and education in systematics and taxonomy? Are there any gaps
in capacity? Is the number of taxonomists in post, and those that
are being trained, sufficient to meet current and future needs
across all taxonomic subject areas?
13.1. State of training. At present,
there is probably no formal training or education in fungal systematics
and taxonomy in the UK at any level.
13.2. Gaps in capacity. There are
huge gaps in capacity. For the fungi, the UK now meets the Darwin
Initiative's criteria for countries in need of help: it is rich
in biodiversity but poor in resources. There are no professional
mycologists employed in the UK to work on the Agaricales or other
major groups of basidiomycetes (the mushrooms and toadstools),
one part time mycologist covers the rusts, there is no coverage
for smuts, the five professional mycologists (including one lichenologist)
working on the huge assemblage of ascomycetes simply cannot cover
many orders. Coverage of the coelomycetes, for example, an important
group of asexual stage ascomycetes, is non-existent. There are
no professional taxonomists who are experts on chytrids, chromistans
or myxomycetes.
13.3. Sufficiency of skills for current
and future needs. The number of taxonomists in post is not sufficient
to meet current needs. There are no taxonomists being trained.
Within ten years there will be no professional fungal taxonomists
to meet any future needs.
4 February 2008
|
