Memorandum submitted by Dr John Waland
Ismay
I am an entomological consultant and taxonomist
specialised in Flies (Diptera), in particular Chloropidae. I am
one of the leading world experts in this family of about 2400
described species. My research interest in systematics, taxonomy
and Chloropidae dates back to 1970. I am a Fellow of the Royal
Entomological Society and am on the editorial board of the Entomologist's
monthly Magazine. Also, I am an Honorary Associate Curator of
the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
I am also currently Chairman of Dipterists Forum,
a non-profit-making NGO concerned with the study of Diptera, particularly
in the UK but also more widely, with more than 300 members. There
are about 7000 species of Diptera recorded from the UK. However,
due to time constraints this submission is a personal one. Paragraphs
are numbered after the question to which they refer.
SUBMISSION
The state of systematics and taxonomy research
1. In my opinion systematics and taxonomy
research in the UK is moribund, with very little funded work ongoing.
Taxonomy as a science deals with finding, describing and naming
organisms, while systematics deals with the relationships between
taxa (singular: taxon), eg species, genera or families, especially
at the higher levels. These may lead to the production of identification
keys. However, identifying specimens is not taxonomy, but taxonomy
is vital for this latter task. In Diptera most of the published
work is done by a small group of non-professionals, nearly all
of whom are of advanced age. In the Diptera there are many groups
where we have no recent UK identification literature. This means
that in order to identify a specimen one must use original published
papers, sometimes several hundred papers for one family. Examples
are Cecidomyiidae (600 species, many plant pests), Ceratopogonidae
(150 species, including the vector of blue-tongue disease in cattle
etc), Agromyzidae (300+ species, many plant pests). Within Diptera,
the current research priority is and must be to improve coverage
of groups. The barriers are the lack of employment prospects for
taxonomists and funding for research projects. There is hardly
any training for new taxonomists, so that as workers cease research
their knowledge is lost.
2. There is a perception in the wider scientific
community that systematic and taxonomic work has been done and
published. In the Diptera this is not the case. Systematics and
taxonomy are vital to almost all whole organism research, but
funding for work on Diptera is almost non-existent. Biodiversity
conservation and ecosystem services are still focused on "cuddly"
groups such as birds, mammals, butterflies and bumble bees, all
of which have a low number of species in the UK. For example,
there are 39 BAP mammals (out of 98 species) but 35 Diptera (out
of 7000 species). A considerable number of Diptera have conservation
status, but without adequate identification literature there is
a risk that many of these will become extinct. Diptera are an
important component of most ecosystems, eg woodland, wetland etc.
Several species are good indicators of climate change. Without
proper taxonomy no identification keys will be produced and identification
of samples will be difficult.
3. I am not aware of a single body which
co-ordinates systematic and taxonomic research in the UK. Systematic
and taxonomic research in the UK is conducted by museums, some
societies and some universities, as well as private individuals.
In entomology (insects) the Royal Entomological Society publishes
Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, with wide
coverage but a low production of new works. The Freshwater Biological
Association also publishes keys. In all cases, there is a problem
with inadequate funding causing delays in publication and causing
high prices. There is a clear case for subsidising publication
of such works, as happens in many other countries. In Diptera,
almost all the work is conducted by private individuals or freelance
consultants, who have no funding. As a result identification keys
do not get completed. New museums posts, more time allocated for
existing staff and funding for freelance researchers are needed.
4. It is almost impossible to acquire funding
purely for an identification handbook or pure taxonomic work.
The councils controlling funding do not regard systematics and
taxonomy as high priority. However, compared to other, more popular
subjects such as biochemistry, the preparation of identification
keys is cheap. Many such works could be produced by the allocation
of 1 or 2 years salary, at Senior Scientific Officer or equivalent
grade. This presumes that the chosen author already has extensive
experience in the group. In the future, more taxonomic posts need
to be created and increased training for younger scientists provided.
This should be funded by central government.
5. In most other countries the situation
is even worse than in the UK and the UK fauna is regarded as the
best known in the world. This was only possible to achieve due
to the high level of non-professional experts. There is enormous
scope for collaboration, particularly with experts from other
European countries. Some of the problems with identification of
UK species can only be solved by research on a European basis,
while some experts from other European countries are better placed
than their UK counterparts to produce keys. The EU has already
funded activities aimed at increasing European collaboration.
In my view some research is better funded on a European basis,
while promoting identification guides to UK species is best funded
by the UK but may require overseas collaboration. However, as
many experts in the UK are non-professionals, due to the low number
of posts, this funding should not be confined to experts associated
with an institution.
6. Systematics has always utilised new discoveries
and incorporated them into the greater body of knowledge. Examples
from Linnaeus onwards include external morphology, internal anatomy,
embryonic development, early stages, behaviour, biogeography,
phylogenetics and now DNA sequencing. It is the aim of the systematist
that these and other aspects be combined into a unified whole,
which allows prediction of the possible properties of a taxon.
For example, knowing the properties of the disease and the vector,
we could predict that blue tongue disease is likely or unlikely
to spread in the UK by considering the presence and distribution
of the fly vector. DNA sequencing is another, possibly more powerful,
tool for taxonomists; but it is useless without an "old fashioned"
taxonomist to relate the sequence to the classical taxon.
DATA COLLECTION,
MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE
AND DISSEMINATION
7. i. Taxonomic data and biological
recording are two separate fields. Data used in taxonomy exists
in various forms; it can, for example, be a precise description
of a species, the locality where a particular specimen was found,
or the range in which a species exists. Taxonomic recording includes
listing the taxa known from a region, for example the UK or Wales
or Oxfordshire. Diptera are exceptionally well covered at world
and UK level, much less so at county level. There are Catalogues
for all zoogeographical Regions, in varying states of accuracy
and age. No other major order of insects has such complete coverage.
There is a 1998 Checklist of all known British and Irish species
of Diptera, including all names which have appeared in British
literature. The Dipterists Forum has produced updates on this
list (6668 species in 1998, about 7000 currently). Much of this
information is available on the web. In other orders these checklists
either do not exist or only include current names. This makes
it very difficult for non-experts to relate the names in older
publications to modern works. One of the main priorities in British
entomology should be to reach this level for the other large orders
of insects, such as Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera. Current
efforts are making slow progress and could be funded. This is
an attainable objective.
ii. Biological recording is the recording
of the distribution of species at national or local level, plus
associated data such as date, habitat, host etc. National and
local recording schemes are highly variable in size and coverage.
Groups such as birds and butterflies are well recorded at national
and local level and changes in distribution are reliably indicated.
National schemes exist for many groups of Diptera, most under
the umbrella of Dipterists Forum, but there are many gaps. In
many families the first stage must be to provide adequate identification
literature, but almost no funding is available for this purpose.
Some funding is becoming available to computerise a large body
of distributional information in the Diptera, but this facility
could be increased. Local and national recording schemes (mostly
run by volunteers) and local government Record Centres are developing
fast and a national coordination scheme is running. Many of these
Record Centres have problems due to cutbacks in local government
funding. Much remains to be done, particularly to ensure even
coverage. Much of this recording is done by non-professionals
and there is further scope for encouraging this skills base by
training new participants.
8. i. Collections are important because
they form a data bank, containing the original specimens from
which a species was described (types), voucher specimens identified
by earlier workers, and the specimens referring to published records.
Where these specimens have been lost, for example by museum pests
or acts of war, this information is lost for ever. Descriptions
of species and records by earlier workers are often inadequate
or unreliable without the specimens available for examination.
Specimens from many collections are used frequently for current
research in the UK and abroad.
ii. Collections can be broken down into
national, local, university and private collections. National
collections (London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Liverpool) have inadequate
core funding for their remit and need better facilities. Local
museums are dependant on local government funding and many are
hopelessly under funded. University museums vary greatly in size
and coverage and can be considered an anomaly in the system. They
require special consideration to maintain some of our most important
collections (eg Oxford University Museum of Natural History, second
in importance to the Natural History Museum but with two entomological
staff). Private collections are a most under-rated resource, with
many non-professional experts who maintain private collections.
In the USA such individuals can claim tax breaks to encourage
good curation and proper arrangements for the future of the collection.
Museums used to employ experts in entomology, often curating whole
collections but researching one group. Other museums employed
experts in different groups, so that good overall coverage was
achieved. Very few taxonomists are currently employed in museums
in the UK. The Natural History Museum had eight world experts
in Diptera taxonomy in the 1960's, who could identify a wide range
of taxa worldwide. The current staff are valued colleagues, but
their research is focused on much smaller projects, often externally
funded, and their taxonomic expertise is focused on smaller groups.
Funding for taxonomic collections is erratic and many do not have
sufficient funding for core activities, let alone the routine
curation and rehousing activities which are essential to the care
of collections. They are dependant on grant funding, which was
always erratic, but now almost impossible due to the reduction
in funding from the National Heritage Lottery Fund.
9. Taxonomy is the description of species
and higher taxa and the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature excludes descriptions of new taxa on the web. This
is because the date of last revision of webpages is not always
clear, but printed works can be accurately dated. However, there
are many resources available on the web and this area will grow
and should be encouraged. The Diptera Checklist noted above is
on the Dipterists Forum webpage. The most important advantage
of web versus printed works is that web resources can be constantly
updated. There has been some collaboration within the international
scientific community in developing web based initiatives. A world
checklist of Diptera is in development (based in the Smithsonian,
Washington) and in Europe a web based Fauna Europaea has listed
the species present in each European country. Much remains to
be done, but I am optimistic about these developments.
11. As indicated above (6), good taxonomy
unifies the information available on a taxon. Good taxonomists
therefore are constantly interested in new developments in their
field; new rearing records, new distributional data, chemistry,
behaviour, as all relate to taxonomy. Non-taxonomists need taxonomists,
especially in the little known or difficult groups, to identify
their specimens (see 12 for the time to train a new taxonomist).
Most taxonomists undertake some training at some level, from "Bug
days" in infant schools, to training experts in related groups
and to training replacements in their specialised field. Field
studies and university courses in field ecology are an essential
aspect of taxonomy, at many levels. Field studies train students
in sampling methods to collect specimens for research, to learn
identification skills and to find species new to science.
SKILLS BASE
12, 13. In my opinion, the skills base
of taxonomists in the UK is a time bomb. Most experts on a group
are retired or near retirement and have no replacement in training.
During the last thirty years many positions for taxonomists were
lost. University teachers often find students who wish to become
taxonomists and their general advice is to take a different job,
as there is no money and precious few jobs in taxonomy. As a general
guide, someone starting with a higher degree but no experience
would take 8-12 years to become expert (ie have a good working
knowledge) of a group and might be expected to cover around 10,000
species, depending on the difficulty of the group. Thus when the
current experts cease to be actively involved, there will be a
great gap in expertise. Knowledge is already being lost, as many
still active taxonomists have to earn their living as freelance
consultants and do not have the time to describe species new to
science or write identification keys. The lack of funding and
positions in this field is the greatest constraint.
3 February 2008
|
