This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Valdecasas, A., Wheeler, Q. Taxonomy: add a human touch too. Nature 467, 788 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/467788a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/467788a
Michael Balke
This is so true. Also, let us not forget that someone needs to prepare the specimens before let's say wing venation patterns can be used in automated species identification (and what if the sample does not have wings yet, because it is a larva?). I agree strongly with Valdecasas and Wheeler, that "There is a place for automated pattern detection...", but more importantly, taxonomy needs to be respected and acknowledged as a modern, independent scientific discipline. Taxonomy needs funding, and stakeholders need to create employment opportunities in taxonomy. There is a place for automated pattern detection – but let us get real – speaking for taxonomy in general, this place is not going to be a seat in the first row. I wonder if it will be a seat at all.
Yuchen Ang
hear, hear! but there really doesnt seem to be any favorable solution, does it? I'd rather have much more focus on auto-identification because it helps the public get in touch with taxonomy without the need of an expert and also help out with long distance sharing of information between taxon group specialists. If money is to be more easily poured into auto techniques, whether because it seems more feasible or more sexy or understandable, it will still benefit taxonomy. I see this as no loss to taxonomists – it cannot replace taxonomy, and even if it gains more precedence than us human taxonomists, it is better than having next to nothing, which very often is the case, currently.