On the notions of taxonomic ‘impediment’, ‘gap’, ‘inflation’ and ‘anarchy’, and their effects on the field of conservation

Abstract

(Received 14 June 2019; accepted 23 September 2020) We examine notions of taxonomic ‘impediment’, ‘gap’, ‘inflation’ and ‘anarchy’, all of which are increasingly prevalent in discussions of the global biodiversity crisis. Following a critical analysis of the history of those notions, we postulate that the entire issue behind them resides in a deep philosophical deficiency in the general comprehension of taxonomic principles. In particular, there is a profound “conceptual turbulence” in the knowledge flux between taxonomy and conservation biology. In general, taxonomists only vaguely understand what conservationists wish to preserve, and conservationists appear to not consider more profound taxonomic issues and the consequences for their interests. Thereafter, we demonstrate the importance of constructing a more solid theoretical bridge between these disciplines, as well as the importance of refining concepts surrounding diversity estimates and species extinction in a world where knowledge can be considered to be increasingly fluid. We also underline the importance of constantly reflecting on the targets of conservation action and strategy, especially the urgency of the question regarding the species as the main unit to be preserved. Ultimately, for taxonomists, it is important to embrace philosophy to make theoretical knowledge more consistent with the wealth of biological theory and empirical data currently at our disposal. Especially, we stress that without a straightforward theoretical dialogue between the delimitation methods and conceptual frameworks such as those governing operational formulae (e.g., DNA barcoding, or reciprocally monophyletic populations), the resultant species should not be viewed as necessarily comparable, or be considered as of equal utility to all fields of investigation, including conservation.

Key words:

• biodiversity
• conservation
• impediment
• philosophy
• taxonomy

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Alain Dubois for his extensive input and ideas during the writing of this manuscript, from which it has benefitted significantly. Alain ultimately declined our invitation to co-author the paper, as he considered that the focus and some of the conclusions of the final version departed too far from his own ideas. Professor Jean Gayon supervised the first author’s post-doc period at the University of Paris. He would have been a natural collaborator but sadly passed away during the manuscript’s gestation. He too was not wholly in agreement with some of our main points and his death unfortunately prevented our reaching a consensus. We are profoundly grateful for his readings of the first draft and discussions on the subject. We thank our three referees for their constructive engagement with the submitted version. The authors received invaluable research funding from the following agencies: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP); Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq); and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Associate Editor: Peter D. Olson