Table Of Content

THE IMPORTANCE OF TAXONOMY AND MUSEUMS IN THE 1990S RAYMOND B, MANNING Manning, R.B. 199) 09 01: The importance of taxonomy and museums in the 1990s, Memoirs of the Queensland Museumn 31; 205-207. Brisbane, ISSN 0079-5835, Much of the basic research on taxonomy 1s carried oul in museums, traditional primary sources of information on species. Museums are characterized by their collections 4 archival holdings of organisms, field and historical data associated with those organisms 4 and library facilities, usually in volumes far beyond those available to individuals in other kinds of research laboratories. These characteristics of museums can only increase their value and the importance of the roles they play in the fulure, given our critical need to understand our environment and its components, especially species. Some problems facing Museums are discussed, and illustrations of same of the kinds of research carried Oulal museumsare given [rom ongoing research on geryonid crabs. (] Museums, taxonomy, systematics, biadiversity, funding. Raymond B. Manning, Department of Inverrebeqte Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20500, USA; 6 July, 1990, Systematics or taxonomy is the study of natu- Further, even though museums are primary ral diversity, better known today by the catch- sources of information on species and even word biodiversity, thanks to the efforts of E.O. though we are in the 8information age,9 automat: Wilson and others (Wilson, 1985, 1988; Black e/ ion of museums9s major sources of information al, 1989), and it is the kind of research charac- on species, their collections and their libraries. teristic of museums. Systematic research is basic lags a generation or more behind current tech- to any other kind of biological study involving nology. Any major department store chain has in species, whether it be fisheries or molecular bi- its data inventory specific information on in- ology. ecology, behaviour, or zoogeography. dividual items of clothing, such as a pair of Inthe 1990s we seem ta have reached the point slacks, including size, fabric, colour, manufac- where both individuals and organisations outside turer, and location. This volume of information the systematic community, including en- on species of shrimps, even commercial shrimps, vironmentalists, legislators and sources of re- is generally unavailable from any museum col- search funding, recognise the fundamental lection, large or small, in machine retrievable importance of knowledge of species diversity, form. Even grocery stores routinely use bar-code museum collections which represent bascline technology to check-out groceries and prepare data over time, and traditional systematic work, bills (invoices). Museums prepare invoices the and appear to be beginning to appreciate the need old fashioned way, as our ancestors did, by hand. for museum collections and systematics. more The technology needed by museums has exisled than at any time in the history of systematic for years. The funding and the expertise needed research, a time period spanning almost 300 to implement the technology is not yet available years, Museums and the systematic prolession in to most museums, which in consequence are general, instead of being prepared for such a unable to manage the vast amounts of informa- momentous change. are facing a crisis: we ap- tion on species available to them. pear to be losing systematists and systematic In the past 30 years we have seen a dramatic organisations, including museums, increase in numbers of recognised species of Part of the problem is that the science of sys- crustaceans, especially in decapods, results of tematics has never been accorded the stature it the work of a generation of specialists. In gery- deserves among all sciences. <Strange as jl may onid crubs, for example, specimens identified seem, there is less allention and regard paid to with Geryon affinis Milne Edwards and Bouvier systematic work at the present time than ever and Geryon quinguedens Smith now have been before.9 This is not a quote from an editorial assigned to af feast 18 different species. Al- published in 1990 in 8Science9 or 8Nature9. [twas though this may not be true for other crustacean published by Waldo Schmitt in 1930, and it is groups, we are about to lose a generation of just as valid today, 60 years later. giants in decapod crustacean systematics, The 206 MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM list of deeapod specialists now retired or near dilemma, but I do know it will take an effort to retirement includes Fenner A. Chace. Jr. Mi- raise the level of understandinogf the fundamen: chéle de Saint Laurent, Jacques Forest, John tal importance of systematics, a much higher Garth, Janet Haig, Horton H, Hobbs, Jr. LB, level of funding thun is now available for sys- Holthuis, R.W. Ingle. 8. Mivake, Isabel Pérez- tematics and collections, the development of na- Farfante, Austin B, Williams, and John tional and international forms of recognition tor Yaldwyn. When Ingle retires next year, the systematic work, 4 cooperative effort by those in British Museum will have one crustacean spe- ucademia and museums to interest people in cialist on its staff, Geoffrey Boxshall; it will be systematic fields and to train them, and some without a decapod specialist for the first time this long-range planning by museums, planning that century. The Japanese crab specialist, Tune includes training and jobs for future generations Sakai, passed away several years ago, as did of systematists, Unless the effort includes creat- Richard Bott, Ch. Lewinsohn, and Raoul Seréne. ing permanent jabs in systematics, includin There appear to be few replacements available many more Support positions, the situation wi for these specialists, all of whom worked al the not improve. Karl Schmidt (in Anonymous, regional or international level. There are many 1953) made many of the same points in an article published in 1952, and noted that E. Ray decapod specialists today who work at the national or local level, and perhaps we are seeing Lankester had made them in the 1880s. a trend away from a few specialists working world-wide to numerous specialists working LITERATURE CITED nationally. This trend could result in more pres- sure on museums to provide information on the ABRS. 1990. Australian Biological Resources Study. literature as well as on species. ABRS Biologue 10: 1-12. Not only are we losing people, in¢luding many ANONYMOUS. 1953, 8Conference on the impor- great systematists, we are lasing institutions. The tance and needs of systematics in biology, April Allan Hancock Foundation, one of the large, 22. 19539. (National Academy of Sciences, active museums in the United States with a long National Research Council: Washington, D.C.), tradition of research, is in the process of transfer- S5p. ring itsc rustacean collections to the Los Angeles 1968. 8Systematic biology: 4 survey of federal County Museum. The British Museum is de-em- programs and needs'- (Punel on systematics and phasising monographic work and work on local Taxonomy, Committee on Environmental Qu- faunas, even though one of its new areas of ality, Federal Council on Science and Tech- emphasis is biodiversity. The government of nology: Washington, D.C.).148p. New Zealand has disestablished the biosyste- BLACK, C. et al. 1989." Lass of biological diversity: A matics programme of the New Zealand Oceano- global crisis requiring international solutions9. graphic Institute, leaving Des Hurley and Elliot (National Science Board: Washington D.C.). 19p. Dawson without jobs. BRUSCA, R. 1990. Science in the museum, Science One bright spot is here in Australia, where the and natural history museunts, Part IL. Upstairs3 : Australian Biological Resources Study, now in 35. its 10th year, anticipates a 12.5% budget inerease MAYR, E., AND GOODWIN, R, 1956, Preserved for 1990 (ABRS, 1990). materials and museum collections. Biological A wide variety of reports on the needs in and Materials, Part f. National Academy of Sciences importance of systematics, prepared for a variety ~ National Research Council Pub, 399; 1-20, of organisations over the past four decades MICHENER, C.D. er al. 1956. 8Systematics in sup- (Anonymous, 1953, 1968; Mayr and Goodwin, port of biological research9. (Division of Bi- 1956; Michener et al, 1956; Steere, 197 1a, ology and Agriculture, National Research 19716; Stuessy and Thompson, 1981; see also Council: Washington, D.C.). 25p. Brusca, 1990), all have common themes. Sys- SCHMITT, W.L. 1930. The study of scientific mate- tematics is important, there aren't enough ral in the museum, The Museum News 8(12): trained systematists, systematics as a discipline 8-10. ranks somewhere under flatworms in impor- STEERE, W.C. 1971a. 8The great collections: (heir tance, and muscum collections need more sup- nature, importance. condition, and future. The port. Yet the situation may be worse today than systematic biology collections of the United in 1953. States: an essential resource, Part 1°. Report to I don9t pretend to have the solution to this the Nalional Science Foundation by the Confer- TAXONOMY AND MUSEUMS IN THE 19909S 207 ence of Directors of systematic Collection(sT.h e 8Trends, priorities and needs in systematic bi- New York Botanical Garden: NewYork). ology9. A report to the systematic biology pro- 1971b. 8The great collections: statistical informa- gram of N.S.F. (Association of Systematic tion. The systematic biology collections of the Collections: Lawrence, Kansas). United States: an essential resource, Part 29, WILSON, E.O. 1985. The biological diversity crisis. Report to the National Science Foundation by Bioscience 35: 700-706. the Conference of Directors of systematic Col- 1988. The current state of biological diversity. 34 lections. (The New York Botanical Garden: 18. In E.O. Wilson and F.M. Peter (eds) 8Biodi- New York). 52p. versity9 (National Academy Press: Washington, STUESSY, T.F. AND THOMPSON, K.S. 1981. D.C.).