Systematics and Paleontology

From
Date
Reply-To
A couple of days ago I read a review of a new systematics textbook in which
the author (of the review) once more bemoaned the state of systematic
education in university-level biology programs. To be fair, the targets of
his complaint were really molecular biology types for whom words like
taxonomy, homology, character, deme, etc. have either completely different
meanings, or no meaning at all. Nevertheless, I couldn't help but wonder
whether the same general sorts of criticisms could be made of
university-level paleontological programs; and for many of the same
reasons.

Like our molecular brethren (or, for that matter, like most of the
biological fields) paleontology is an intensely interdisciplinary science
that requires a firm grounding in several different areas before much real
progress can be made. Thus, in addition to systematics we must teach our
students stratigraphy, evolution, statistics, sedimentology, taphonomy,
comparative morphology...you get the picture. Moreover, since most
universities offer but a single course (if that) in paleontology at the
undergraduate level, and often no formal graduate courses other than
seminars, the fact of the matter is that compromises must be made. That
having been said, the way in which we make those compromises says something
about how we view or field and what we believe is going to be important to
paleontology's future. This, in turn, leads to the question that's been
bugging me. Should we be ranking particular aspects of paleontology as
being more central to the science than others and, if so, where does
systematics fit into this ranking? Do we regard systematics as being
fundamental to all of paleontology, or is it simply one topic among the
many that need to be covered in any survey course with none being
intrinsically more important than any other?

I realize there will probably be as many answers to these questions as
readers of this posting. However, I would be interested to know where my
colleagues rank systematics within the field as a whole and whether they
feel this subject is currently receiving (for better or for worse) the
attention it deserves. If systematics is regarded as simply one skill among
many, then perhaps we might understand why we appear to be running out of
broadly trained and experienced systematists/biostratigraphers. On the
other hand, if we regard systematics as being a fundamental part of our
science, then I think we have to start asking some hard questions of
ourselves about why systematic paleontology is in trouble.


Norm MacLeod



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman MacLeod
Senior Scientific Officer
N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (Internet)
N.MacLeod@uk.ac.nhm (Janet)

Address: Dept. of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum,
         Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD

Office Phone: 071-938-9006
Dept. FAX:  071-938-9277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------