A new genus name for water mites, from a recent paper in Zootaxa:
Vagabundia comes from the Spanish word ‘vagabundo’ that means ‘wanderer’. It is a feminine substantive; sci refers to Science Citation Index. We pointed out some time ago (Valdecasas et al. 2000) that the popularity of the Science Citation Index (SCI) as a measure of ‘good’ science has been damaging to basic taxonomic work. Despite statements to the contrary that SCI is not adequate to evaluate taxonomic production (Krell 2000), it is used routinely to evaluate taxonomists and prioritize research grant proposals. As with everything in life, SCI had a beginning and will have an end. Before it becomes history, I dedicate this species to this sociological tool that has done more harm than good to taxonomic work and the basic study of biodiversity. Young biologists avoid the ‘taxonomic trap’ or becoming taxonomic specialists (Agnarsson & Kuntner 2007) due to the low citation rate of strictly discovery-oriented and interpretative taxonomic publications. Lack of recognition of the value of these publications, makes it difficult for authors to obtain grants or stable professional positions. [Antonio G. Valdecasas. "Confocal microscopy applied to water mite taxonomy with the description of a
new genus of Axonopsinae (Acari, Parasitengona, Hydrachnidia) from Central America" Zootaxa 1820: 41–48 (2008)]
Hat tip to Malte Ebach
Life Science
Politics
Comments
Oh, that poor mite.
Posted by: Bob O'H | July 27, 2008 9:07 AM
John:
I know this is an inappropriate place for this subject but,
the talk.origins newsgroup seems to be down (since the 25th at 19:05Z) and I have no idea where to look for status reports &c.
I know you're an old timer (and still active) on that group and I think you probably can contact D.I.G.
Thanks
Martin
Posted by: MartinDH | July 27, 2008 10:20 AM
WIth this disclaimer that my knowledge of university biologiy curricula is limited, beyond my home institution, I say this.
I'm not sure I would say young biologists are put off from taxonomy for that reason. I mean, they might be, if they get that far in taxonomy, but taxonomy as a living science (rather than as something that happened in history)isn't really taught. The idea that you could become a taxonomist, or what a taxonomist would do, is likely alien to most students. Taxonomy seems to be something botonists, zoologists, entemologists, microbial scientists and palaeontologists do when they happen apon something new, or new relastionships, in the course of their 'normal' work.
Posted by: pubcat | July 27, 2008 7:05 PM
I think the SCI issue came up after my time. Thinking about taxonomists I know, I think many have come into taxonomy from an early hobby interest in some group of organisms. Either that, or they encountered an inspiring course about some group of organisms. Some universities have courses in systematics, which may include considerable treatment of taxonomy. The real key is hooking up with a working taxonomist in a museum or in a department which has a collection of comparative material. Taxonomists are usually trained in museums, or in museum-like settings. So develoment of taxonomists depends a lot on the success of natural history museums and collections being able to support them.
One of the big problems a new PhD taxonomist, who has landed a good job, has it to balance the need to do field work while young and vigorous with the need to teach and publish as needed for tenure. It seems to me that grants for taxonomic studies are a smaller pond than grants in many other areas.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | July 29, 2008 9:48 PM