Re: Systematics and Paleontology

[Carlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandy)]

I have been spurred on to comment about the role of systematics in
paleontology by Dr. Yancey's comments.  

>Comments about the role of systematics in paleontology appearing during the
>last
>week reveal that systematics has a weak base among paleontologists and that it 
>cannot be expected to maintain a central role in the future. 

I diasagree fundamentally with this assessment.  There is far too much
unnecessary and unwarranted doom and gloom about the state of systematics
in paleontology, perpetrated primarily by invertebrate paleontologists. 
Vertebrate paleontology is in a renaissance of sorts regarding the central
role of systematics in structuring research in this field; even
invertebrate paleontology, which lags behind v.p. in this regard, still
includes individuals (more than are usually acknowledged) who feel strongly
about the value of systematics and try to impart those feelings in both
published work and in teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate
levels.  

Norm's query to 
>paleonet elicted some strong affirmations of support for systematic study, but 
>these affirmations noticeably came from persons engaged in biostratigraphic 
>study. 

Since our classes have just begun for the year, it is difficult to respond
to interesting paleonet messages as quickly as might otherwise be possible.
 This should not be taken as a lack of support.  I am frequently amazed by
the amount of time spent by some to compose numerous, lengthy replies to
this bulletin board.

Persons whose primary focus is the determination of geologic time and 
>correlation of rocks. For them, mastery of techniques of species determination 
>is fundamental to effective work.
>The absence of response from practitioners in other aspects of paleontology 
>suggests that systematics is indeed, just one skill among the many skills we
>>are expected to apply. In most university programs, paleo teaching focuses on
>
>topical issues, training persons to be good commentators but not teaching them 
>the tools needed to generate basic systematic data. 

I disagree with this overgeneralization.  In the university programs with
which I am familiar, students are still being trained to formulate and test
hypotheses, make observations and interpretions of morphological features,
and cultivate a curiosity about the diversity of life.  These are the tools
needed to generate basic systematic data, in my opinion.

In general, skills utilized 
>in working with species (recognizing, identifying, and describing species) are 
>picked up in an informal manner outside the set curriculum, as a by-product of 
>having to work with fossil data or from a self-motivated, personal desire to 
>learn about a group of organisms. All of us promote this trend when we
>encourage
>students to work on "big picture" issues and discourage them from doing
>routine,
>descriptive work, although it is often the case that much more descriptive
>work 
>is needed to properly evaluate conclusions that have passed early testing. In 
>evaluating a research proposal (at the thesis level as well as at national 
>funding level), the ability to generate high quality taxonomic data is less 
>important than having a well argued goal for addressing a conceptual problem.
>
>If we hold to the belief that most of the basic descriptive work has already 
>been done, or that the available descriptive work is adequate for testing the 
>models we find interesting, there is little need to support systematic study.
>We do tend to value the hypothesis more than the data-base. 

"Descriptive work" is rarely done outside of a context of hypothesis
testing, even if the hypothesis is simply "are these two specimens
representatives of the same species?"  A database in search of a hypothesis
is of limited use.  Deductive methods advance science more efficiently and
in a more exciting, discovery-based framework than do inductive methods
(again, in my opinion).
>
>Systematics seems to have become subsumed within the theme of determining 
>phylogeny. In the process, descriptive systematic study is being lost in the 
>welter of debate on how best to portray degrees of relatedness among taxa.
>This 
>philosophic quarrel inhibits workers from doing routine systematic work and 
>raises questions about the proper procedures for doing systematics. Is
>learning 
>the intricacies of cladistic methodologies more important than learning the 
>details of character state determination needed for completing a comprehensive 
>morphologic description of a taxon? Both require considerable skill in 
>application to obtain useful results. In most cases, the teaching of skills in 
>character state determination is the secondary step, especially since 
>relationships are evaluated on the basis of a selected set of characters, not
>a 
>comprehensive set.

This is simply false.  Determining phylogenetic relationships is an
integral part of systematics.  Descriptive systematic study is unarguably
essential prior to AND following the completion of a phylogenetic analysis,
as anyone who has attempted a phylogenetic analysis knows.  To argue
otherwise reflects a profound lack of understanding of phylogenetic methods
and principles.  

>For most people, including paleontologists, systematics is dull. If we do not 
>have to learn about tintinnids, scolecodonts, stenolaemates, hemichordates, or 
>psilophytes, we are relieved. 

Systematics is anything but dull when it is protrayed as a means to better
understand and structure the evolution and diversity of life of Earth.  It
certainly IS dull when presented as nothing more than memorizing names. 
Learning names and morphology and stratigraphy is still essential to
conducting systematic research -- necessary, but alone they not sufficient.
 When learned in a context of problem-solving or hypothesis-testing, they
become more relevant, more valuable, and thus more interesting and easier
to teach.

The result appears to be a dichotomy among 
>paleontologists, with a majority of people having limited systematic knowledge 
>and using numerical or instrumental techniques to work on paleontologic
>problems
>and a minority of people (especially among the retired or near-retired) with 
>great systematic knowledge who enjoy doing traditional descriptive systematics 
>and who continue to generate much systematic literature. It is also noticeable 
>that some who first worked in more topical paleontology have drifted into
>doing 
>systematic work and that some excellent work is being done by self-trained 
>paleontologists, done as an avocation. This contributes to the perception that 
>systematics is no longer central to paleontology. The de facto result is that 
>systematics has an important but reduced role in paleontology, being merely
>one 
>of several skills. A skill that tends to be shunned by most.

>Complex problems have simple, straightforward, wrong solutions.  (H.L. Mencken)

I couldn't agree more.

Sandy Carlson