International Palaeoentomological Society Statement on unethical practices in describing new taxa

Taxonomy or biological systematics is the basic scientific discipline of biology, postulating hypotheses of identity and relationships, on which all other natural sciences dealing with organisms relies. Taxonomy as the scientific discipline that explores, discovers, interprets, represents, names, and organizes organic beings (Ebach et al., 2011), is one of the oldest biological disciplines. Taxonomy is a scientific discipline that has provided the universal naming and classification system of biodiversity for centuries and continues effectively to accommodate new knowledge (Thomson et al., 2018). However, taxonomic impediment, decrease in the number of taxonomists, lack of appreciation for this area of research is not only the problem for studies on Recent organisms and their diversity (Wägele et al., 2011; Britz et al., 2020; Vinarski, 2020; Raposo et al., 2021), but it is affecting seriously also research and studies on fossils, their taxonomy and their palaeodiversity.

Biological Systematics

Understanding the history and philosophy of biological systematics (phylogenetics, taxonomy and classification of living things) is key to successful practice of the discipline. In this thoroughly revised third edition, the authors provide an updated account of cladistic principles and techniques, emphasizing their empirical and epistemological clarity. The book covers the history and philosophy of systematics; the mechanics and methods of character analysis, phylogenetic inference, and evaluation of results; the practical application of systematic results to biological classification, adaptation and coevolution, biodiversity, and conservation; along with new chapters on species and molecular clocks. The book is both a textbook for students studying systematic biology and a desk reference for practicing systematists. Part explication of concepts and methods, part exploration of the underlying epistemology of systematics, the edition addresses why some methods are more empirically sound than others.

Biodiversity and Conservation

This chapter assesses the role of biological systematics in conservation. Increasing awareness of the global destruction, diminishment, degradation, and fragmentation of natural habitats in terrestrial, aquatic, and marine environments has brought the study of “biodiversity” to a new level of intensity. Biodiversity, as the term is currently used, has many meanings, and its study ranges broadly across biology. There are, however, aspects of biodiversity that are strictly systematic, including (1) recognition and enumeration of the world's biota, and (2) inference of historical relations — both genealogical and geographical — among members of the biota. These types of knowledge can be used directly to inform our efforts for staving off continuing extinction at the hand of the human species.

Multiplicity of Research Programs in the Biological Systematics: A Case for Scientific Pluralism

Biological diversity (BD) explored by biological systematics is a complex yet organized natural phenomenon and can be partitioned into several aspects, defined naturally with reference to various causal factors structuring biota. These BD aspects are studied by particular research programs based on specific taxonomic theories (TTs). They provide, in total, a framework for comprehending the structure of biological systematics and its multi-aspect relations to other fields of biology. General principles of individualizing BD aspects and construing TTs as quasi-axiomatics are briefly considered. It is stressed that each TT is characterized by a specific combination of interrelated ontological and epistemological premises most adequate to the BD aspect a TT deals with. The following contemporary research programs in systematics are recognized and characterized in brief: phenetic, rational (with several subprograms), numerical, typological (with several subprograms), biosystematic, biomorphic, phylogenetic (with several subprograms), and evo-devo. From a scientific pluralism perspective, all of these research programs, if related to naturally defined particular BD aspects, are of the same biological and scientific significance. They elaborate “locally” natural classifications that can be united by a generalized faceted classification.

Multiplicity of Research Programs in the Biological Systematics: a Case for Scientific Pluralism

Biological diversity (BD) explored by the biological systematics is a complexly organized natural phenomenon and can be partitioned in several aspects defined with references to various causal factors structuring biota. These BD aspects are studied by particular research programs based on specific taxonomic theories (TT). They provide in total a framework for comprehending the structure of the biological systematics and its multi-aspect relations to other fields of biology. General principles of individualizing BD aspects and construing TT as quasi-axiomatics are briefly considered. It stressed that each TT is characterized by a specific combination of interrelated ontological and epistemological premises most adequate to the BD aspect a TT deals with. The following contemporary research programs in systematics are recognized and characterized in brief: phenetic, rational (with several subprograms), numerical, typological (with several subprograms), biosystematic, biomorphic, phylogenetic (with several subprograms), evo-devo. From a scientific pluralism perspective, all these research programs related to particular naturally defined BD aspects are of the same biological and scientific significance and no one of them can pretend to take a privileged position. They elaborate “locally” natural classifications that can be united by a kind of generalized faceted classification.

Biology and panpsychism: German evolutionists and a philosopher Theodor Ziehen (1862–1950)

Theodor Ziehen was a prominent German psychiatrist and psychologist and a marginal philosopher of the first half of the 20th century who developed an exotic subjective-idealistic theory based on quasi-empirical psychological arguments. Although Ziehen was seen by contemporaries (most prominently by Vladimir Lenin) as a representative of the same philosophical current (empirio-criticism) as Mach and Avenarius, he never achieved their prominence in the history of philosophy. At the same time, Ziehen’s philosophy became influential in German biology, first of all, due to his direct and very strong impact on Bernhard Rensch. Rensch, in his turn, was the most significant figure on the international scene of what is known as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis in biology. Rensch was not the only biologist influenced by Ziehen’s ideas. Ziehen had some communication with the “German Darwin” Ernst Haeckel and played a prominent role in the concept of the founder of biological systematics Willi Hennig. How to explain Ziehen’s prominent place in the history of evolutionary biology, despite his obscurity in the history of philosophy? Our hypothesis is that Ziehen became a visible figure in evolutionary theory because of the monistic bias in German biology. Ziehen’s epistemology appeared to be compatible with evolutionary monism and was developed by a practicing psychiatrist therefore obtaining a character of a quasi-experimental doctrine.

Verbalizing phylogenomic conflict: Representation of node congruence across competing reconstructions of the neoavian explosion

Phylogenomic research is accelerating the publication of landmark studies that aim to resolve deep divergences of major organismal groups. Meanwhile, systems for identifying and integrating the novel products of phylogenomic inference – such as newly supported clade concepts – have not kept pace. However, the ability toverbalizeboth node concept congruence and conflict across multiple, (in effect) simultaneously endorsed phylogenomic hypotheses, is a critical prerequisite for building synthetic data environments for biological systematics, thereby also benefitting other domains impacted by these (conflicting) inferences. Here we develop a novel solution to the conflict verbalization challenge, based on a logic representation and reasoning approach that utilizes the language of Region Connection Calculus (RCC–5) to produce consistentalignmentsof node concepts endorsed by incongruent phylogenomic studies. The approach employs clade concept labels to individuate concepts used by each source, even if these carry identical names. Indirect RCC–5 modeling ofintensional(property-based) node concept definitions, facilitated by the local relaxation of coverage constraints, allows parent concepts to attain congruence in spite of their differentially sampled children. To demonstrate the feasibility of this approach, we align two recently published phylogenomic reconstructions of higher-level avian groups that entail strong conflict in the “neoavian explosion” region. According to our representations, this conflict is constituted by 26 instances of input “whole concept” overlap. These instances are further resolvable in the output labeling schemes and visualizations as “split concepts”, thereby providing the provenance services needed to build truly synthetic phylogenomic data environments. Because the RCC–5 alignments fundamentally reflect the trained, logic-enabled judgments of systematic experts, future designs for such environments need to promote a culture where experts routinely assess the intensionalities of node concepts published by our peers – even and especially when we are not in agreement with each other.