Evidence-Based Taxonomy: Labels as Illocutionary Acts

Abstract

Concepts in science have an important role: They delimit and specify objects, activities, processes, and abstract entities. When terms are diffuse, mean different things to different persons, and lead more to qualifications than demarcation, they cease to be concepts and may become labels, which are informal alternative designations. There are many labels in science and they have become abundant in taxonomy: α-taxonomy, integrative-taxonomy, iterative-taxonomy, etc., are only a few examples. α-taxonomy is a negative label that obtained popularity at the same time the term α-diversity became popular in ecology. The label α-taxonomy conveys a negative meaning to taxonomy because the nature of its evidence—originally morphological—is seen by many as “merely descriptive” and, thereby, supposedly inferior to other forms of evidence. This has contributed to substantial and unwarranted damage to the status of this science and to the careers of taxonomists. The recent history of methodologies for species delimitation shows that what some have considered of low value (morphology), compared to “new” data (molecular), is in many cases the critical factor to delimit species. We propose to eschew these kinds of labels and simply refer to taxonomy to avoid stigmatizing of any kind of practicing taxonomist, whether focused on morphology, cytology, molecular biology, or other fields of biology. Taxonomy implies the use of the current best evidence, theories, and methods to demarcate species and their relationships.