Download Why bother about taxonomy and taxonomists in Europe

Supporting European taxonomy current state and possible future actions
The participants in the EPBRS Meeting held under the Italian Presidency in Florence, 20-24 November 2003
expressed their unanimous concern that taxonomy which is the basic yet often concealed and forgotten
background for sustainable management and sound conservation of biodiversity has not been recognized
among the priorities of FP 6.
A decision was taken to organize a round consultation on the level of taxonomy research in Europe and the
importance of this scientific discipline for reaching the target “to halt the biodiversity by 2010” and to prepare
a document to be presented to the Steering Committee of the EPBRS in support of taxonomy and its
recognition as one of the priorities in the forthcoming calls of FP6.
The discussion was organized by the national bioplatforms in the countries represented in the EPBRS and
moderated by Dessislava Dimitrova, Bulgarian Biodiversity Platform. Scientists from Belgium, the
Netherlands, Denmark, Bulgaria, Sweden, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary
contributed to the discussion. It has become apparent during the discussion that taxonomic science in
Europe, both in the EU and ACC countries is in severe crisis and that the taxonomy of the European
biodiversity is still far from its required completeness.
The following aspects of taxonomic research were discussed:
1. Traditions and approaches in taxonomic studies;
2. Taxonomic groups profoundly studied so far and their percent from the whole biodiversity in the
respective country;
3. Taxonomic groups that are poorly studied or there is no information about them at all;
4. Taxonomic groups from the respective country of particular conservation value at local, regional and
global level, for which the lack of taxonomic information can cause their irreversible loss;
5. How is the taxonomic research financed and what is the ratio EU:national funding.
The information from the discussion is summarized in Annex 1.
The following main conclusions can be made that refer both to the EU and ACC countries.
1. Taxonomy originated in and has long traditions in Europe. European scientists have studied the
diversity of plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms on land and in sea in their own countries, have
performed joint studies with colleagues from the neighboring countries and have explored even
different continents. Priorities in taxonomy vary according to the history of the country and the
specificities of its nature. Some of these priorities, however, are diminishing and sometimes even
coming to an end because of the cutback in number of research positions for taxonomy. At present
there are national research groups that efficiently combine molecular and traditional taxonomic tools,
e.g. in vertebrates (mammals, birds, fishes), a restricted number of insect and non-arthropod
invertebrate taxa, fungi, vascular plants, and various groups of protists. The strength of these groups
in an international context lies in the fact that most of them still comprise traditional taxonomists as
well as more molecular-oriented systematists, thus ensuring the quality of samples used for
molecular analysis as well as ensuring that new insights obtained from molecular analyses are
transferred into improved classifications and species circumscriptions. The broad competence of
these research groups also makes it possible to obtain new insights into basic questions on
evolutionary processes leading to diversification, e.g. on speciation mechanisms and the genetic
basis of morphological evolution.
2. Despite this long history of taxonomy there are still large groups of organisms that are untouched
and there are no even specialists in them even in Europe as a whole. Among them are such as
several groups of Arthropoda and non-arthropod invertebrates (e.g., “lower Phyla”), many large
groups of fungi (inconspicuous homo- and heterobasidiomycetes; nonpathogenic or weakly
pathogenic plant surface, endophytic, litter-decaying and aquatic or marine ascomycetes (arguably
the largest poorly studied group); nonsporulating or very slowly growing hyphomycetes;
1
hyphomycetous and ascomycetous cryptic species (morphologically mimicking related or unrelated
species), etc. Vascular plants in Europe have been more or less well studied with the exception of
some taxonomically complicated groups like Taraxacum, Hieracium, some groups from Rosaceae,
etc. The same refers for a number of animal groups in which cryptic diversity is expected (e.g.
Rotifera), for marine microplankton and microbenthos. Unicellular microorganisms are another
understudied field, although some special efforts are being directed towards taxonomy of microorganism (e.g., the Belgian Coordinated Collection of Micro-organisms – BCCM.
3. New and innovative developments in taxonomy have been recognised. These are of two kinds: fast
methodological developments with respect to molecular methods and databasing and new
approaches towards elucidating and understanding the phylogenetic relationships (also as an
essential input n weighting the biodiversity values).
4. The importance of taxonomic infrastructure (biological collections, databases) is recognized both at
national and international scale. There are number of initiatives running in Europe to facilitate access
to the largest herbaria and data sources. However many of these institutions rely mostly on national
funding or donations from the private sector. In these institutions the taxonomic research is in crisis:
scientific and technical staff positions are cut or allocated to other scientific disciplines and funds for
basic research are limited. In many cases administrative tasks and maintenance of the collections
are so time consuming that hardly any time is available for field work or to adopt and develop new
scientific methods. In ACC in most cases the biological collections are state property and rely mostly
on very limited state funding. In addition they suffer from old infrastructure, small number of
researchers, old equipment. In the same time very often these collections comprise valuable
samples of the local biodiversity (often in regions of very rich biodiversity, e.g. the collections in the
Balkan countries) and type specimens of the local/regional flora and fauna. It is a threat for science
and understanding and protecting biodiversity if the funding of the collection facilities continue to
decrease. It should be noted that initiatives like BioCase and CETAF facilitate the access to the
biological collections and can largely contribute to the better identification and up-to-date taxonomic
revisions. It should be noted that these European and EU-funded initiatives are important signals, as
they are promoting and increasing national interest and funding for the collection facilities and
taxonomic research.
5. In general, the prevalence of national funding over the EU-funding for taxonomic research and
maintenance of biological collections is obvious both in EU and ACC countries.
Why to support taxonomy?
1. Taxonomy and systematics are the backbone for biodiversity research, conservation and
sustainable use as they define and provide the overview of the units of biodiversity - the
species.

Taxonomy as a science describes and records global biodiversity, and unravels the
relationships between elements of biodiversity. As such, it is the basic framework for any
approach to biodiversity research and conservation. Without basic taxonomic knowledge,
society would simply not have the necessary information to be aware of, let alone conserve
biodiversity. The task set to taxonomists is formidable: estimates on the total number of species
on Earth range between 5 million and 100 million, of these little more than 1.5 million have been
formally described and named so far; the geographic and ecological coverage of this taxonomic
knowledge is very uneven globally.

Taxonomic science produces the identification tools and insights on evolutionary relationships
required by researchers in other disciplines to study organisms. This not only holds for
biodiversity science, but for any field studying, or using, biological models.

Taxonomy offers researchers in any field of biological science the tools to communicate about
organisms. These tools consist of the standardised rules and procedures that ensure internal
consistency in scientific naming of organisms, and can be applied with confidence to any group
of organisms wherever it is found on earth (International Codes of Bacteriological, Botanical,
Zoological Nomenclature, nomenclatural codes for viruses, cultivated plants,).

Taxonomy requires a long-term commitment by researchers and decision makers. When
compared to other disciplines, a relatively long and intense training is needed to become a
knowledgeable expert in the taxonomy of any group. Similarly, the establishment of a useful and
2
valuable taxonomic infrastructure is mostly a process, which takes many years. These factors
make that the discontinuation of taxonomic traditions, as witnessed today, results in hard to
revert losses of knowledge. Identifying expert traditions in taxonomy, and providing the
resources to maintain these should therefore be absolute priorities in a policy developing
taxonomy at any level.

The results of taxonomic research are published in internationally accepted journals through
established procedures and subsequently, the results are compiled in publications (including
electronic media) such as handbooks, catalogues and floras, usually on a regional or national
basis. Thus the taxonomic data are easily accessible and can be organized in electronic
databases.
2. Taxonomy is a research field, which is at the cross-roads between science and society. There
are strong traditions in some countries (UK, Germany, the Netherlands) for amateurs in taxonomy of
certain popular groups, e.g. Hieracium, orchids, butterflies, etc. Although it should be realized that
strong support by professional taxonomists is needed to motivate amateurs, and to support the
scientific value of their work, there is a clear link between traditions in taxonomy and strong public
awareness and support for protection and sustainable use of biodiversity at local and regional scale.
3. Taxonomy in the ACC countries needs specific support. Very often these countries have rich
biodiversity, but face severe financial constraints to study and preserve this resource. In addition,
many ACC countries maintain world-class, important biological collections, which face the risk of
being lost because of insufficient government funding :



The economy of many ACC countries is still in transition. Most of the taxonomic research is
focused in the universities and academy of sciences which are mainly state institutions with very
low budget. The same refers to the major biological collections. They all rely on the restricted
state budgets. This often results in relatively very low salaries for researchers, even to local
standards; old equipment, lack of incentives for young scientists to choose the academic career
and enter the field of taxonomy. These problems have been recognized, to different degrees, by
the contributors from the ACC countries.
Underdeveloped research infrastructure for taxonomy and systematics in the ACC countries can
present obstacles to these countries for their adequate participation in the future ERA.
The possibilities for access to the biological collections and molecular Labs are very much
acknowledged and used. However, there is a real need for local development - cooperative
projects involving advanced training of taxonomists from the ACC countries and development of
their research infrastructure. Otherwise, there are two options - either scientists from the ACC
countries move to another European country where they can work at modern level, or they
forget all they have learned during their specialisation abroad. In this second case considerable
amount of European money spent for the fellowships of these taxonomists are spent in vain.
The importance of taxonomy for the investigation, protection, and sustainable use of biodiversity has
been recognized on the international, and European level:
1.
Governments, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, have acknowledged the
existence of a "taxonomic impediment" to the sound management of biodiversity and a
Global Taxonomic Initiative (GTI) has been established to deal with the knowledge gaps in
the taxonomic system (including those associated with genetic systems), the shortage of
trained taxonomists and curators, and the impact these deficiencies have on our ability to
conserve, use and share the benefits of our biological diversity. The following steps are
envisaged:

Operational objective 1: Assess taxonomic needs and capacities at national, regional and
global levels for the implementation of the Convention.

Operational objective 2: Provide focus to help build and maintain the human resources,
systems and infrastructure needed to obtain, collate and curate the biological specimens that
are the basis for taxonomic knowledge.

Operational objective 3: Facilitate an improved and effective infrastructure/system for access
to taxonomic information; with priority on ensuring that countries of origin gain access to
information concerning elements of their biodiversity.
3
2.

Operational objective 4: Within the major thematic work programmes of the Convention
include key taxonomic objectives to generate information needed for decision-making in
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components.

Operational objective 5: Within the work on cross-cutting issues of the Convention, include
key taxonomic objectives to generate information needed for decision-making in conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components.
EU Biodiversity Strategy

3.
4.
Theme 3: apply modern taxonomy to build scientific tools for policy on conservation and
sustainable use, aiming inter alia, to fulfil gaps in taxonomy knowledge
European Commission: Communication from the Commission: The European Research Area:
providing new momentum. Strengthening-reorienting-opening up new perspectives. In this document
several possibilities for fostering taxonomic research can be found, especially in the activities for:

mapping of excellence

increasing mobility of researchers

development of research infrastructure

networking of national research programs

boosting private investment in research

establishment of trans-European electronic network for research

regional structuring of ERA
Taxonomic research impacts directly on the following priority issues in European research
for the 21st Century:

inventory: knowledge on taxonomy and systematics of many groups must be improved with the
primary goal to identify and list the European species that are under threat of global extinction

genetic variation: work on the genetics of populations and species for conservation and to
understand ecosystem structure, function and resilience

the CBD ecosystem approach requires substantial research to make it effective as a policy
and management tool and to clarify how biological diversity affects the ecosystem approach and
vice versa.

classification of habitats and ecosystems: research is needed to extend, refine and exploit
the existing classifications, preferably based on taxonomically sound clusters of species
composition and distribution in the habitats and to adapt them better to the practical needs of
users

soils: research is needed to understand how soil biodiversity responds to stress, the role of soil
biodiversity in ecosystem function, resilience and recovery
What should be done:
1. Biodiversity research projects should, wherever possible and reasonable, include workpackages on
taxonomy and systematics, as part of the Community contribution to the Global Taxonomy Initiative
2. Work to develop taxonomy or systematics should be carried out in conjunction with projects that
touch on other biodiversity issues
3. Special efforts are needed to support research on the inventory and taxonomy of poorly known
groups of organisms (incl. micro-organisms) in Europe and to understand their often crucial role in
ecosystem functioning. . Application of molecular tools combined with the classical taxonomic
approaches (morphological studies, embryology, karyology, chemotaxonomy) in the study of
taxonomically complicated groups should be promoted.
4
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Phylogenetic research is required to ensure the application of the phylogenetic signal in the
development of general biodiversity indicators, analyzing the potential invasive species, pollinatorplant interactions, conservation policies, etc.
Networking of taxonomic data (e.g. Euro+Med Plant Base, Fauna Europaea, Species 2000) should
be fostered and clear terms of access and use of the results of these projects should be formulated.
Open up existing actions (e.g., Marie Curie Action) to proposals dealing with taxonomic issues
The access to the biological collections should be provided and improved. Their maintenance,
enrichment and even rehabilitation should also be supported. Actions should be promoted that will
bring the biological collections in the ACC countries in conformity with the modern standards and will
ensure access to them.
High priority should be given to the identification of the components (species) of the European
biodiversity, the uncovering of their genetic potential and to the identification of the species under
threat of global extinction or whose populations rapidly decline.
The ACC countries
 Taxonomy is one of the scientific fields in which establishment of regional networks of research
institutions/infrastructures can be supported. The regional approach is important in taxonomy
also for raising public awareness in the different countries - well trained taxonomist can
contribute to a better understanding of the local biodiversity and its protection and sustainable
use.
 National biodiversity platforms can be the medium for such joint initiatives that can be financed
through the FP. Through the national biodiversity platforms, contacts and networks for future
cooperation can be established.
5
6. Traditions and approaches in taxonomic studies in Europe;
Belgium
Hendrik Segers
[email protected]
The Netherlands
Prof. Wouter Loss
[email protected]
Belgium has a long tradition in taxonomic biodiversity studies of the national territory (incl. North Sea), but also of
central Africa (Congo, Burundi, Rwanda), and Antarctica. In addition to these main focal regions, long-lasting tradition
of research on other regional biota (e.g., Papua New Guinea and the Galapagos Islands) exist. As for the tradition in
taxon coverage, long-term traditions in research on angiosperms, macromycetes, Nematoda, freshwater zooplankton,
Coleoptera, Mollusca, Aranea, Acari, fishes, exist. Some of these traditions, however, are coming to an end because
of the cutback in number of research positions for taxonomy.
Comments: In Belgian taxonomic research, shifts are seen towards the implementation of molecular techniques in the
analysis of taxonomic and phylogenetic data. Special efforts are being directed towards taxonomy of micro-organism
(e.g., the Belgian Coordinated Collection of Micro-organisms – BCCM). Especially successful are these studies that
combine both "traditional" (morphological, physiological, ethological) and molecular approaches. As for the application
of web technology as suggested by Godfrey (Nature 417: 17-19), this field is in development and presently consists
largely of efforts to develop web access to databases. Belgian research, including taxonomy, has always been very
much directed to the international scene. This is illustrated by the activity of researchers in exotic regions as listed
above, but also by their involvement in international research projects. Notwithstanding this, the expertise on a number
of taxonomic groups is being lost at an ever-increasing rate. This is especially alarming in a discipline like taxonomy, in
which becoming a knowledgeable specialist requires a tremendous amount of training.
Traditions and approaches in taxonomic studies
a. Yeast taxonomy: the Netherlands is a world center of yeast taxonomy. Originally following the Beijerinck or Delft
tradition of physiological testing, a Dutch invention, it moved rapidly to molecular approaches beginning in the 1980's.
There are currently two active centres, the Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures (CBS), and Wageningen
University's Microbiology Laboratory.
b. Hyphomycete (simple mould) taxonomy. The Netherlands, mainly represented by CBS, has also been in the
forefront of hyphomycete taxonomy, originally following the Hughes conidial ontogeny tradition, but now seeking to
integrate this tradition with extensive use of molecular data. A smaller active centre, also very modern in approach, is
associated with the Plant Protection Service (PD), Wageningen.
c. Coelomycete (pycnidial mould) taxonomy. The Netherlands has been a major world centre for the study of plantdisease causing and related Coelomycetes, with activities shared between the PD and CBS. A morphological
tradition has been followed, only recently supplemented with molecular study, mainly at CBS.
d. Ascomycete taxonomy (teleomorphic, non-lichenized). The Netherlands has been a secondary centre of
Ascomycete taxonomy in recent decades, with some areas of strength at CBS and Rijksherbarium Leiden.
Morphological traditions have been followed except in several recent CBS publications, where molecular study has
been integrated.
e. Lichenized ascomycete taxonomy. The Netherlands has been a major centre of lichenized ascomycete taxonomy,
with recent strength shared mainly by CBS and by independent entrepreneurial lichenologists. Morphologicalchemotaxonomic traditions are followed; molecular work is not done at this time.
f. Basidiomycete (non-yeast) taxonomy. The Netherlands is a prominent centre of expertise in Agaricales taxonomy,
with several experts working out of the Rijksherbarium Leiden in collaboration with numerous proficient amateurs and
actively retired experts. Morphological traditions are followed except in very recent molecular-based student projects,
as yet unpublished. There is relatively little activity in relation to non-Agaricalean filamentous basidiomycetes.
6
Norway
Magnar Bjerga
[email protected]
Denmark
Henrik Enghoff
[email protected]
Sweden
Thomas Nilsson
[email protected]
Latvia
Voldemars Spungis
[email protected]
Estonia
Tiiu Kull
[email protected]
Hungary
László Papp: [email protected]
László Peregovits
g. "Lower fungal" and Oomycete taxonomy. CBS and PD collaborate to form a major centre on phytopathogenic
Oomycete taxonomy, with extensive use of molecular and population genetics methods. Zygomycete taxonomy is
also, relatively speaking, an area of strength and modernized development, though work is limited to particular
subgroups, mainly Mortierellaceae and, very recently, Glomales. No known work is done with Chytridiomycota.
Norway has a quite strong tradition in taxonomy/systematics and biogeography, but as in many other countries, many
of the Norwegian experts in classic taxonomy and species identification are either already retired or close to
retirement. Transfer of knowledge from these persons to young scientist is therefore an urgent issue of outmost
importance.
Basic taxonomic/systematic science:
There are several active research groups/persons in different Norwegian institutions working with traditional
approaches based on field studies, studies of museum specimens, and morphological analysis. Some of these groups
efficiently combine molecular and traditional taxonomic tools, e.g. in insects, fungi, vascular plants, and various groups
of protists. The strength of these groups in an international context lies in the fact that most of them still comprise
traditional taxonomists as well as more molecular-oriented systematists, thus ensuring the quality of samples used for
molecular analysis as well as ensuring that new insights obtained from molecular analyses are transferred into
improved classifications and species circumscriptions. The broad competence of these research groups also makes it
possible to obtain new insights into basic questions on processes leading to diversification, e.g. on speciation
mechanisms and the genetic basis of morphological evolution.
Surveys of national and arctic taxonomic diversity and biogeography: Norway also has a strong tradition in producing
updated surveys of the national species diversity and geographic distribution of species, in particular for vascular
plants ('Lid's Flora'), fungi, and lichens. This activity is mainly connected to scientists responsible for the collections in
the natural history museums, often in close collaboration with amateurs. Of special importance is the long tradition in
arctic areas, not only in Svalbard and the European Arctic, but in the complete circumarctic area. Norwegian scientists
are, for example, leading the international project for production of a PanArctic Flora, for which a critical checklist is
completed.
Long and strong traditions in national but also global taxonomy
Long tradition in taxonomy. Carl Linnaeus laid the foundation of modern plant taxonomy. Nowadays many ammateurs
in different groups of animals, plants, etc.
Ca. 150 years of taxonomic studies in Latvia. Less attention has been paid to Vertebrata because of less number of
species, much more - on vascular plants and Invertebrata, mostly insects, because of huge number of species.
Traditionally, our taxonomists concentrate on vascular plants and insects.
Tradition of taxonomical work dates back to the beginning of 19 th century. Well studied groups are vertebrates, plants,
fungi (also lichenized fungi), insects, but also some other invertebrate groups, Rotifera, Nematoda, Annelida,
Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Copepoda, Malacostraca, Arachnida, etc. Besides morphological method more and more
molecular tools are used in plants, fungi and vertebrate taxonomy.
To stop decline in biodiversity, it is just a dream of politicians, who have been mislead by the idea of sustainable
development, or who are paid to maintain the false idea, since it is much cheaper to pay high salaries to a low number
of people than to launch projects for saving and restoration of natural habitats against millions and millions of euros.
7
László Ronkay
Poland
Bogdan Jaroszewicz
[email protected]
Slovenia
Dr. Lovrenc Lipej
[email protected]
Czech Republic
Jan Kirschner
[email protected]
Bulgaria
Dessislava Dimitrova
[email protected]
This is a “virtual world campaign” which is a cruel joke with the facts and we are afraid that will result in further
reduction of the biodiversity even in Europe.
We do not think that more support to animal taxonomy would be the tool to stop decay in biodiversity (even in
Europe). Taxonomists can (if they are asked and paid to do that) only detect, recognise or (rarely) foresee decline in
biodiversity.
We have always been suspicious, when people are speaking “traditions” in taxonomic studies. Some ignorant decision
makers are unable to make distinction between traditions and useful (time and money saver) rules, for instance the Intl
Code of Zoological Nomenclature. A poor misbelief (or sometimes an ugly cooking) that approaches and methods in
taxonomy have been old and poor, as a consequence of the abilities of the taxonomists. No, we can declare,
approaches are primarily determined by the amount of money we can pay out for a task.
The main problem is, that taxonomy is only small part of some courses at Universities, so taxonomists are usually selfgrown specialists concentrated on groups of organisms, which for some reasons became center of their lives.
Traditionally students or phd students are learning their skills under the individual supervisory of specialists. That is the
reason for which it is very difficult to revive taxonomic works if there is gap in succession of studies in given country:
young adepts has to then spend a lot of time to learn for their own or to contact someone from another end of
continent.
Substantial tradition in spelaeobiological research in Slovenia (many described new species, loci typicus, locus
classicus, many endemites), alpine research, special groups, etc.
Comment: The knowledge about the area of distribution for animals and plants in Slovenia is far from being
satisfactory.
Long tradition, nowadays a wide range of techniques used
Long traditions in taxonomy of animals and plants - since the end of the 19 c. till nowdays. The morphological
approach has prevailed. Since the second half of the last century cytotaxonomy and later chemotaxonomy of plants
have been established. Most recently there are some data from molecular studies both in plants and animals but these
research has been carried out in cooperation with foreign laboratories. Bulgarian scientists have contributed to the
investigation of the flora and fauna of the neighbouring countries on the Balkans
8
7. Taxonomic groups profoundly studied so far and their percent from the whole biodiversity in the
respective country;
Belgium
Hendrik Segers
[email protected]
The Netherlands
Wouter Loss
[email protected]
Norway
Magnar Bjerga
[email protected]
Denmark
Henrik Enghoff
[email protected]
Sweden
Thomas Nilsson
[email protected]
Latvia
Voldemars Spungis
[email protected]
The best known taxa are vascular plants (flowering plants, conifers, ferns, horsetails, quillworts and club mosses),
vertebrates (lampreys, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals), a number of invertebrate groups like Porifera
(sponges), Aranea (spiders), Pycnogonida (sea spiders), and some insect orders (Ephemeroptera - mayflies, Odonata
- dragon- and damselflies, Coleoptera - beetles (especially carabids - groud beetles), Lepidoptera - butterflies and
moths). These represent less than 4% of the species living in Belgium. Knowledge on a number of other taxa is good
to quite good (e.g., macromycetes, lichens, marine macro-algae, Charophyceae s.s., mosses ; Orthoptera, Mollusca,
Decapoda and Isopoda). About half of the species living in Belgium are known for a number of groups (Collembola,
Hymenoptera (especially parasitic wasps are poorly studied), Myriapoda (gaps for symphylans and pauropods),
Amphipoda, Polychaeta, Cestoda, Ectoprocta, (Source: Peeters, M., A. Franklin & J.L. Van Goethem (eds), 2003.
Biodiversity in Belgium. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, 416pp.)
Comments: In general, only the large and "fancy" groups are well known.
Total diversity Metazoa: 24.443 species Well-known - the following phyla: Porifera, Cnidaria (Coelenterata), Mollusca,
Arthropoda-Crustacea, Arthropoda-Chelicerata without Acari, Arthropoda-Insecta, Arthropoda-Chilopoda, ArthropodaSymphyla, Arthropoda-Diplopoda, Arthropoda-Chilopoda, Chordata (mainly Vertebrata): total circa 20.200 = 82.6 %
Fungi: circa 1500 (cultured hyphomycetes, coelomycetes) + 300 (phytopathogenic oomycetes) + 4000 (agarics) +
200 yeasts + 330 (lichens) + 400 (well known uncultured/unculturable phytopathogens) = circa 6730 species total =
43.4% of the 15,500 already-described species probably present in the Netherlands, or 22.4% of the total predicted
species present (as per Hawksworth & Rossman).
Birds (450), Terrestrial mammals (57), Marine mammals (25), Marine fish (150), Fershwater fish (40), Vascular plants
(1800), Amphibians (5)
- 75% of all biodiversity
vertebrates, most insect groups, most groups of marine and freshwater invertebrates, vascular plants, macrofungi,
hepatics, mosses, macrolichens and macroalgae
The Swedish Species Information Centre has listed all c. 2500 families of multicellular plants, animals and fungi
present in Sweden (representing about the 50 000 multicellular species of Sweden's ca. 63 000 known species). Ca
75% of the families are rather well-studied viewed over time, and most of the Swedish species in these families are
covered in scientific literature.
The most well known and profoundly studied phyla/divisions, where all, or almost all families are more or less fully
covered in scientific litterature: Pteridophyta, Magnoliophyta, Echinodermata and Chordata. These groups represent
less than 10% of Sweden's multicellular species.
Comment: However, much of the studies have been performed in other countries rather than in Sweden, and today
only a fraction of these groups are covered by taxonomic expertise in Sweden.
About 75-80% of living organisms in Latvia are known except Procaryota - all vascular plants, vertebrates, butterflies,
beetles, bees and numerous smaller groups on invertebrates are well studied. But at the same time numerous other
groups of invertebrates, fungi etc. are still poorly investigated.
9
Estonia
Tiiu Kull
[email protected]
Hungary
László Papp: [email protected]
László Peregovits
László Ronkay
Poland
Bogdan Jaroszewicz
[email protected]
Slovenia
Dr. Lovrenc Lipej
[email protected]
Czech Republic
Jan Kirschner
[email protected]
Bulgaria
Dessislava Dimitrova
[email protected]
About 24000 spp. have been registered so far, and the estimated number lies between 35 and 45 thousand. Bacteria
and Protista ca 1500 Fungi 4500, Algae 2000, Bryophyta 525, Pteridophyta+Spermatophyta 1500, Porifera 3,
Coelenterata 11, Ctenophora 1, Plathelminthes 300, Nematelminthes 450, Nemertini 4, Annelida 143, Bryozoa 7,
Mollusca 155, Anthropoda over 12000, Pisces 74, Amphibia 11, Reptilia 5, Aves 222, Mammalia 64
Some of the Hungarian “science politicians” declared several times, that e.g. in zootaxonomy we belong to the
“leading” nations in Europe. Well, our position - as for good taxonomists and usable reference collections - is really fair
in Europe (one may say, our relative position is good), but every one of three animal species, which are expected to
occur in Hungary (among the known, i.e. described species, based on the known occurrences), has not been
identified (captured and published) yet. In other words, about 70 % of our fauna has already been detected.
It is true, that there are certain animal groups (mainly the vertebrates and the most “popular” insect and mollusc
families), where the European fauna and the Hungarian fauna is well-explored on species level. But it is far not the
truth for their phyletic relationships and the situation is even more problematic when the insfraspecific taxonomy is
under discussion. Now we have already generic tools for the primary infraspecific studies but it would require a mass
support to use them as a routine.
Almost all groups of organisms were or are studied in Poland but of course we still have a lot of gaps in our
knowledge. To well studied groups belong:
a.
all groups of Phylum Chordata
b.
most groups of Insecta (especially Lepidoptera and Coleoptera but also Hemiptera and Heteroptera);
c.
Chilopoda and Diplopoda;
d.
Araneae;
e.
Most of Acari;
f.
Nematoda (with some exceptions);
Of course these are only bigger groups, but there are also a lot of families in Order Diptera which are very well studied
(Syrphidae, Calliphoridea, Phoridae and others) and some other small taxonomic units.
The groups, which are supposed to be profoundly studied (i.e. almost complete checklist of species) are indicated in
bold.
PLANTS & FUNGI (data only for terrestrial organisms)
Mycota (5000), Lichenes (860), Bryophyta (790), Pteridophyta (71), Spermatophyta (3195)
Vertebrates: Cyclostomata (4), Freshwater Fish (81), Marine Fish (188), Amphibians (23), Reptilians (22), Marine
reptilians (2), Birds (365), Mammals (83). The list of terrestrial vertebrates of Slovenia is nearly complete.
Invertebrates (at least 22.561 species). Well studied groups: Mollusca (769), Sipunculida (4), Pantopoda (6),
Chaetognatha (7), Acrania (1)
An estimate of really profoundly studied groups exceeds 50% of the native flora, there is a good knowledge of algae, many groups
of fungi etc., fauna is less complete, microscopic organisms are difficult to assess
Animals: only about 50% of the total animal diversity have been recorded. Among the well studied invertebrate in
Bulgaria are Myxozoa, Porifera, Coelenterata, Polychaeta, Oligochaeta, some groups of Arthropoda (Opiliones,
Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Orthoptera, Heteroptera, Trichoptera), Molusca. About 96.8% of the vertebrates have been
well studied
Plants: Most groups of vascular plants are well studied, with the eception of some taxonomically complicated groups.
Ten volumes of the Flora of R Bulgaria have been published so far, covering all families except for Dipsaceac,
10
Campanulaceae and Asteraceae.
Fungi: inventory of only 24% of all expected species (20600). Relatively well studied taxonomically groups are
Erysiphales (probably 80% are recorded and only 50% of the combinations host-parasite), Peronosporales,
Sphaeropsidales, Ustomycetes, about 70% of the lichenized fungi
8. Taxonomic groups that are poorly studied or there is no information about them at all
Belgium
Hendrik Segers
[email protected]
The Netherlands
Wouter Loss
[email protected]
Poorly studied groups in the Belgian "flora" (sensu lato) are mostly micro-organisms from soil and marine
environments, as well as parasitic and pathogenic agents of non-commercial hosts: bacteria, archea, marine
phytoplankton, zygomycetes, glomeromycetes and other microfungi or pseudofungi (protistan taxa such as slime
moulds, alveolates, heterokonts). In many cases, the knowledge of the diversity of these groups is out of date, going
back a century or more, and/or fragmentary and taxonomically unsatisfactory. The majority of taxonomic groups of
"fauna“ have to be regarded as poorly known (10 to 30% of the expected fauna recorded: Protozoa, Myxozoa,
Turbellaria, Trematoda, Nematoda, Rotifera, Kinorhyncha, Protura, Mallophaga, Coccoidea, Thysanoptera, Symphyla,
Tanaidacea, Sipuncula, Echiura, Tardigrada). The situation is worse for groups such as Monogenea (about 5% of
expected species recorded), and for some marine groups for which there is no information (Gnathostomulida,
Cycliophora, Priapula, Loricifera, Tantulocarida, Stomatopoda, Pentastomida, Aplacophora, Brachiopoda,
Hemichordata). Finally, only obsolete data are available on taxa like Nemertea (publications from 1861 and 1883);
Nematomorpha (1943), Kinorhyncha (1869), but also for a number of lower taxonomic groups like Dermaptera (1888).
(Source: Peeters, M., A. Franklin & J.L. Van Goethem (eds), 2003. Biodiversity in Belgium. Royal Belgian Institute of
Natural Sciences, Brussels, 416pp.)
Comments: In general, groups of cryptic or taxonomically complex taxa are poorly known, and much of the data are
obsolete.
Animals: Platyhelminthes (340 species known, 1900 expected), Rotatoria (400 species known, 1200 species
expected), Nematoda (1700 species known, 2500 species expected) and Arthropoda-Chelicerata-Acari (1300 species
known, 2300 species expected). Smaller groups not mentioned. Question about percentage is silly, since we do not
know the number of species, but overall, of all Metazoa circa 17.4 % of the known species belong to groups of which
we do not know the exact situation very well.
Fungi: inconspicuous homo- and heterobasidiomycetes; nonpathogenic or weakly pathogenic plant surface,
endophytic, litter-decaying and aquatic or marine ascomycetes (arguably the largest poorly studied group);
nonsporulating or very slowly growing hyphomycetes;
hyphomycetous and ascomycetous cryptic species
(morphologically mimicking related or unrelated species); aquatic hyphomycetes (Ingoldian type and otherwise);
insect commensals and fungal predators of protozoa, non-phytopathogenic oomycetes plus other zoosporic fungi
(chytrids, hyphochytrids). In this entire collection there are, as per the above, an estimated circa 9000 species
described from elsewhere in the world yet to be noted as components of Netherlands biodiversity, plus most of the
estimated 14,500 undescribed species. For both these numbers, it can be roughly estimated that at least half the
undocumented organisms are ascomycetous.
11
Norway
Magnar Bjerga
[email protected]
Denmark
Henrik Enghoff
[email protected]
Sweden
Thomas Nilsson
[email protected]
Latvia
Voldemars Spungis
[email protected]
Estonia
Tiiu Kull
Insects (22000 (include 2100 butterflies, 3300 beetles and 3000 Hymenoptera); Fungi (5000); Bryophytes (1056);
Lichens (400); Invertebrates (4500)
25% - not well studied
microorganisms; Acari; parasitic Hymenoptera; sciaroid Diptera; fungi imperfecti, anamorphic lichens and lichen
parasites; several groups of microalgae
For roughly 25% of the families scientific literature does not cover the Swedish species to a satisfactory extent.
Experts on these groups are rare and declining. No analysis has been performed as regards how many species these
families represent. It must be stated, too, that these figures are only very preliminary.
Many groups are very poorly studied. Some phyla are poorly known as a whole: Nematoda, Platyhelminthes,
Gastrotricha and Acantocephala. Also parts of Ascomycota, especially those non-lichenized, Arthropoda: Hexapoda
(in particular parasitic wasps and dipterans) and parts of Arthropoda: Chelicerata (in particular mites) belong to this
category. These very poorly known groups represent roughly 20% of the Swedish multicellular species.
From taxonomic point of view various algae, fungi, soil-dwelling organisms (nematodes, mites), small freshwater and
marine invertebrates are poorly studied.
no data
[email protected]
Hungary
László Papp: [email protected]
László Peregovits
László Ronkay
Poland
Bogdan Jaroszewicz
[email protected]
Much to our regret, we have to point out categorically that almost the half of the Animal Kingdom even in Europe
belong to groups, which are poorly studied, and is far more than the half in the “Tropics”. Comparing the history of the
research, the invested energy and manpower, the situation is far not better in Europe than in the less developed areas
of the World, maybe the rate is different from country to counrty. It would be inevitable to increase radically the number
of the specialists for practically all invertebrate animal groups, paying the attention to the fact that to get expertise in an
animal group requires considerably longer time than a regular course of a university degree (!). Investments must
come first: investments in education (on MSc and PhD level), money invested into reference collections, and mainly,
more positions for young taxomomists in reference collections, please. It is not for our interest to force such kind of
investments! No, we - the overtasked animal taxonomists - would work more with more young people in our
collections, etc., if those dreams will come true.
According to my knowledge poorly studied groups of organisms are (in taxonomic order):
Regnum Protista (as whole);
Regnum Mycetes (Fungi) – a lot of taxonomic units untouched;
In Regnum animalia following units:
Nematoda - parasites of birds;
Tardigrada;
Some units in Subclassis Acari;
Some specific families in Classis Insecta (for example: Superfamilia Psylloidea, Superfamilia Cynipoidea and
a lot of other units in Order Hymenoptera, Thysanoptera, some difficult families in Coleoptera (for example
Mordellidae); a lot of families in Diptera (examples: Micropezidae, Psilidae, Dryomyzidae) …
Comment: Poland is large country, with 40 mln of people, so almost each group of organisms has some specialists. However there
are groups very poorly studied or some of them, which were well studied in past, but now there are no people interested in them.
12
Slovenia
Dr. Lovrenc Lipej
[email protected]
Many marine taxa are not studied at all. We lack many data on many marine groups of invertebrates, which is the
consequence of the lack of taxonomists, the lack of financial support from ministries and the fact, that young students
are not encouraged to get specialized in a specific taxonomic field.
Czech Republic
Jan Kirschner
[email protected]
Some groups of insects, many groups of microscopic organisms
Bulgaria
Dessislava Dimitrova
[email protected]
Animals: Microspira, Protura, Psocoptera, Strepsiptera; cave dwellers are very poorly investigated;
Vascular plants: taxonomically complicated groups (agamic, polyploid complexes, hybrid swarms) - mostly from
Rosaceae, Asteraceae, Poaceae
Fungi: many groups
9. Taxonomic groups from the respective country of particular conservation value at local, regional and
global level, for which the lack of taxonomic information can cause their irreversible loss;
Belgium
Hendrik Segers
[email protected]
The Netherlands
Wouter Loss
[email protected]
Norway
Magnar Bjerga
[email protected]
Denmark
Henrik Enghoff
[email protected]
Sweden
Thomas Nilsson
[email protected]
Comments: Because of a lack of knowledge in these groups, it is impossible to assess their conservation value; in
addition, we feel that a lack of taxonomic information can never be the immediate cause of biodiversity loss. However,
this knowledge is a prerogative to a sustainable and effective conservation policy.
Comments: The conservation value of inconspicuous fungi is often considered to derive as much from their potential
as sources of enzymes, drugs, etc., as from their important contributions to nutrient cycling, plant growth, insect
control, and overall ecosystem health. In both types of practical matters (potential use and ecosystem health), all
taxonomic groups rank absolutely equally in conservation importance. It would be expected that few fungi would
actually be endemic in the Netherlands; however, disappearing microfungi, like the numerous red-listed lichen and
Agaricalean mushroom species within the well-known groups, are indicators of whole ecosystem types being
extirpated within the nation. Thus, taxonomic work on ALL insufficiently studied groups not only helps to unlock their
industrial potential, but also provides key understanding of ecosystem partitioning, the distribution of habitats, and
any degree of irreversible destruction that is being brought about by unfavourable land use practices or industrial and
domestic effluvia.
With regard to the question about which groups the lack of taxonomic information can cause their irreversible loss, this
is certainly true for many insect families and algea groups. This may also be for true for taxonomic groups within other
of the poorly studied groups, e.g. marine benthic fauna.
no data
Comment: We want to stress, however, that a classification of "wellknown/poorly known" groups as regards knowledge
about distribution, habitat and conservation status would turn out differently than the rough analysis presented above.
As a measure of how bad the situation is, one can mention that so far only about 40% of Sweden's multicellular
species have been possible to evaluate according to IUCN's red-listing criteria. The other 60% are too poorly known. It
13
Latvia
Voldemars Spungis
[email protected]
Estonia
Tiiu Kull
is thus obvious that not only taxonomic research is needed, but also baseline inventories and monitoring efforts
covering the whole field of biodiversity.
Comment: I think it is more important for us to know taxonomy of different organisms what ensure functioning of
ecosystems, particularly typical for our biogeographical region, rare and threatened.
no data
[email protected]
Hungary
László Papp: [email protected]
László Peregovits
László Ronkay
Poland
Bogdan Jaroszewicz
[email protected]
Slovenia
Dr. Lovrenc Lipej
[email protected]
Czech Republic
Jan Kirschner
[email protected]
Bulgaria
Dessislava Dimitrova
[email protected]
He is a liar or ignorant who says that a group is “more important from a conservation of biodiversity point of view” than
anothers! There are groups which are flagships of the conservation policy but it is based on their popularity and not on
their “importance” in the biosphere. The general problem is that we have so poor information about the role of the
given species within the living communities what is really desperate… All groups have basic value and the lack of their
taxonomic information will (can, could) cause irreversible loss.
Comment: In my opinion the largest conservation value from Polish groups of organisms have these living on the dead
wood and characteristic for woodstands of natural type. These are not taxonomic groups, they belong to Mycetes,
lower plants, a lot insects and other invertebrates, but also some vertebrates (for example woodpeckers, owls, birds of
prey and so on)
Comment: It is important to have all available taxonomic data in order to take proper conservation measures. The
same is true also for species, living in endangered habitats; for example many cave-dwelling invertebrates were not
yet studied properly.
no data
no data
14
10.
How is the taxonomic research financed and what is the ratio EU:national funding.
Belgium
Hendrik Segers
[email protected]
The Netherlands
Wouter Loss
[email protected]
Taxonomic research (incl. infrastructure) in Belgium is funded through national (federal) and regional funding
programmes. The federal government of Belgium funds three major institutes that are active in taxonomic research and
house important and substantial collections. These are the Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences (RBINS,
Brussels - seven departments, including Vertebrates, Invertebrates, Entomology, Education and Nature. See:
http://www.naturalsciences.be/), the Royal Museum for Central Africa (MRAC, Tervuren - sections Vertebrates,
Entomology, Invertebrates non Insecta. See http://www.africamuseum.be), and the National Botanical Garden (NBG,
Meise - see http://www.br.fgov.be/). The Belgian Federal Science Policy Office also contributes to the development of
an infrastructure for taxonomy, by its support of BCCM and of the Belgian node of GBIF (Be-BIF), and promotes
taxonomic biodiversity research through the Forum on Systematics and Taxonomy of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform.
The Department of Cooperation and Development has recently started up a programme for capacity building in the
framework of the GTI, in the fields of taxonomy, collections and database management in developing countries
(cooperation between RBINS, MRAC). Also the regional governments and universities allocate substantial funds in the
maintenance of collections (botanic and zoological: e.g., University herbaria, botanical gardens, zoological museums).
Universities and regional institutions such as the Fund for Scientific Research (FWO - Vlaanderen, Fonds National de la
Recherche Scientifique) and the Institute for Science and Technology (IWT - Vlaanderen, FRIA) offer grant
opportunities for specific research projects and PhD research, which may concern taxonomy. The amount of funds
allocated to taxonomic research varies greatly over time. In addition, a number of awards exist for outstanding scientific
contributions by the royal Academy of Sciences and of the royal Academy of Overseas Sciences, which are
occasionally awarded for taxonomic studies.
EU projects on taxonomic research or infrastructure in which Belgian Institutes are involved are:
- BioCASE (Biological Collection Access Service for Europe): NBG (national node)
- CETAF (Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities): RBINS, MRAC, NBG;
- ENBI (European Network for Biodiversity Information): RBINS, MRAC, NBG;
- Fauna Europaea (FaEur): RBINS and individual researchers
- SYNTHESIS: RBINS, MRAC, NBG (ex- ABC programme);
Comments: Federal and regional funding for taxonomic infrastructure is substantial in Belgium, and concerns in
particular the funding of research and collections management of museums and botanical gardens. Funds for
taxonomic research sensu stricto is very limited, and decreasing, as taxonomy projects are having a hard time
competing for funds with research disciplines that are perceived to have a more direct economic link. Notwithstanding
this, national and regional funding for taxonomy is substantial. Calculating a ratio of EU:Belgian funding is impossible
given the time constraint. However, it is clear that the amount of EU funding is particularly low compared to Belgian
funding, when compared to the ratio in other biodiversity-related disciplines.
(Naturalis only) mainly government; minor additional funding from funding agencies (NWO, ALW, WOTRO),
sometimes from private funds (like UES). EU money only incidentally. Zoological Mseum / University of Amsterdam
with large national financial problems. Depends strongly on contract and sponsor money. BOTANY - Increasingly
severe financial threats. Taxonomic research on fungi in the Netherlands is financed almost entirely by the
Netherlands government and its educational/research granting programs. Additional contract funding.
15
Norway
Magnar Bjerga
[email protected]
Denmark
Henrik Enghoff
[email protected]
Sweden
Thomas Nilsson
[email protected]
Latvia
Voldemars Spungis
[email protected]
Estonia
Tiiu Kull
No data
Mostly through universities and the Natural Science Research Council
Low ratio of EU:national funding
Swedish taxonomic research is mainly funded nationally. The Swedish Parliament has earmarked approximately 16.5
million Euro per year since 2002 on research on biodiversity and ecologically sustainable development. This includes,
among many other research fields, taxonomic research and support to museum collections. Another important
activity that also is included is The Swedish Taxonomy Initiative, aiming at describing all Swedish multicellular
organisms. The Swedish Taxonomy Inititaitve is designed to run for 20 years.
Through the European Commission's programme for "Improving the Human Research Potential and the Socioeconomic Knowledge Base" (IHP) funds have been made available to provide transnational access for researchers
from Member States and Associated States to undertake short visits to utilize the collections and other facilities of the
Swedish Museum of Natural History for research purposes. Future access to the Swedish Museum of Natural History
will be provided in the scope of the SYNTHESYS programme, an Integrated Infrastructure Initiative funded by the
European commission within FPVI.
There are very, very limited financing of taxonomic studies in Latvia. The financial sources are state science budget
and donations from Latvian Environmental Protection Fund. Fauna Europaea is the only “taxonomic” project at
European scale. Now, EU:national ratio is approximately 1:6, but total budget is very small.
Comment: Direct protection of environment (mostly chemical status) without knowing what we protect and
implementation of EU directives is a priority.
no data
[email protected]
Hungary
László Papp: [email protected]
László Peregovits
László Ronkay
Poland
Bogdan Jaroszewicz
[email protected]
Slovenia
Dr. Lovrenc Lipej
The EU/ Hungary ratio is presently low as for taxonomic research financiation. However, we are optimistic as for the
future, and this ratio is more than zero even in our days.
There are fields of the Biodiversity studies (databanks, etc.) which imply the use of the taxonomy (see for instance the
MacMan, etc.), therefore a some EU money may be used for the work of taxonomists. But, nobody could get fund
directly for taxonomic studies so far.
The Hungarian national funding of the taxonomy has been turned into a better – but far not into a good – situation.
Now there is a real hope to get support for the basic taxonomy but the money is too limited comparing with the work to
be done. The Hungarian Scientific Research Fund changed basically its funding policy for the support of zootaxonomy
in the last couple of years. As a consequence, other funding systems has already changing towards the good
direction.
The key problem is now, that the number of the supported experts is still too low.
no data
To my knowledge, only a very negligible part of the taxonomical work is financed from EU funding. The funding at
national level (through The Ministry of Education, Science and Sports) is negligible, as well. Pure taxonomic studies
16
[email protected]
reseive very little attention.
Czech Republic
Jan Kirschner
[email protected]
Bulgaria
Dessislava Dimitrova
[email protected]
Mostly through projects funded by grant agencies and university grants; taxonomic research funding from the EU
sources negligible (if any), usually as a part of projects with other research priorities than taxonomy (especially fungi,
algae, cyanobacteria etc. are concerned)
Taxonomic research is financed mainly from the national budget and the National Science Fund. Partly taxonomic
research is carried out in the frame of bilateral academic agreements with Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, etc. The
contribution of EU funding is negligible. So far Bulgaria has participated in several EU projects which have reference to
taxonomy - Euro+Med Plant Base, Fauna Europaea, Biocase. Thse projects support mainly databasing or networking
but not pure taxonomic research.
17