This week, Nature published a short Correspondence from Giovanni Strona, a biologist “mainly interested in theoretical ecology”, with a positively shocking revelation: taxonomists are selling the naming rights to new species.
I knew having a fainting couch installed next to my lab bench would pay off one day.
At risk of bringing Nature’s legal department crashing down upon my head, here’s Dr. Strona’s correspondence in its entirety (free, readable PDF here -> http://rdcu.be/dilx):
“One of zoology’s highest honours may now, it seems, be purchased on eBay (see go.nature.com/ziq152). For a few thousand dollars, you are offered the privilege of naming a ‘small, rare’ species. A species name will last forever, says the vendor — even as taxonomists themselves struggle to survive.
Taxonomists invest months confirming that a specimen is new to science. They sift through obscure literature — often in a different language and lamentably illustrated. More months are spent on the species’ description, which must be accurate enough to enable future taxonomists (should they survive the sixth mass extinction) to confirm that their ‘new’ species is different. Eventually, they publish their work in a systematics journal with an impact factor typically below 2 — even when the species is a previously undescribed mammal (the olinguito Bassaricyon neblina, pictured; see K. M. Helgen et al. ZooKeys 324, 1–83; 2013).
These low impact factors make it hard for taxonomists to land positions in academia, and job opportunities in museums are sparse. Selling perpetuity on eBay is starting to look like an attractive alternative.”
For such a short piece, Dr. Strona sure managed to cram a lot of condescension and indignation into it, along with some rather discouraging misunderstanding of taxonomy.
Now, this is hardly the first specific epithet to be sold to the highest bidder. In fact, the practice has been going on for probably about as long as taxonomists have been in need of funding (i.e. forever), and it’s a topic I’ve written about before. Since that original post, I can remember seeing maybe a half dozen species names up for grabs, whether as perks for crowdfunding, or in auctions similar to the one that drew Dr. Strona’s attention.
Suffice it to say this isn’t exactly a novel concept, which of course makes me wonder why it’s easier to get a letter in Nature decrying the process than an actual new species description, but I digress.
Let’s look at Dr. Strona’s article and see wherein the problem (?) lays.
The eBay auction in question is titled “NAME A NEW SPECIES! HONOR SOMEONE SPECIAL! WOW! A UNIQUE, RARE OPPORTUNITY-L@@K!“. OK, fair enough, and with an asking price of only $4,500, this appears to be a steal of a deal!
But, what is the species we’re trying to buy naming rights for, exactly?
“The NEW SPECIES will be a Small Animal!”
Well, that narrows it down. It appears that it is not a vegetable, nor a mineral, and is presumably smaller than a breadbox. I still have 19 questions remaining, most of which are about the 1990’s-era internet design for the seller’s page, but I’ll set those aside for now.
Anderobe’s Special Store, the seller, is apparently a purveyor of rare natural history curios and books, but they do offer a clue as to what this “Small Animal” is likely to be, and whom your bid will be funding. Near the bottom of the auction page, the seller lists “Previous Participants and Winners”:
Euryhaliotrema dunlapae and Rhabdosynochus hudsoni
A little Google Scholaring later, we find these are ectoparasitic flatworms (Phylum: Platyhelminthes, Class: Monogenea — remember this detail, it’ll make things interesting in a bit), and both species share a common author, Delane C. Kritsky. Who is this mysterious person dragging taxonomy’s good name through the mud with their outlandish desire to fund the naming of a new species?
Dr. Delane Kritsky is listed as Professor Emeritus at Idaho State University in the faculty of Health Education, and appears to have published at least 104 papers, primarily on the systematics & evolution of flatworms, in addition to describing 8 new genera and 74 new species of flatworms. Knowing very little about marine flatworms, I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that Dr. Kritsky is a world expert on flatworm taxonomy, and has a pretty solid basis from which to do his work. If he needs $4,500 to help him describe another new species (funds which I’d guess will go to defraying the expenses of visiting other institutions to examine specimens), I think that’s pretty reasonable, particularly for a retired taxonomist who is trying to share a career’s worth of accumulated knowledge before it disappears forever.
It’s also worth noting that the offending auction was last updated May 12, 2014, and isn’t even listed in Anderobe’s Special Store at the moment. I think it’s fair to say there haven’t been many takers on this particular offer, which is more sad than affronting.
Back to flatworms. Dr. Strona is a former post-doc whose work appears to mostly involve ecological modelling, including, but not restricted to, parasitic Monogenea flatworms. So, we have an early career scientist who depends on the natural history data and infrastructure provided by taxonomy, very publicly calling out a senior taxonomist who has probably provided a large chunk of the aforementioned natural history data & taxonomy, for trying to fund the very research that the junior scientist is building her career around.
Alrighty then.
Now that we have some context for our outrage, let’s revisit Dr. Strona’s letter!
“One of zoology’s highest honours may now, it seems, be purchased on eBay (see go.nature.com/ziq152).”
I agree; discovering, describing, and naming a species is one of zoology’s highest honours. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s for sale. What is for sale are the rights to suggest a specific epithet, which, while fun, isn’t something I’d associate with “honourable”. I’m going to assume Dr. Strona actually meant having a species named after you (what we call a patronym) is the highest honour, but honour is all about context, not just the perpetuity of taxonomy. Plenty of jerks have species named after them; most notably, Hitler.
“For a few thousand dollars, you are offered the privilege of naming a ‘small, rare’ species. A species name will last forever, says the vendor — even as taxonomists themselves struggle to survive.”
You’re right, taxonomists are struggling to survive, mostly because we don’t have jobs or even, you know, a few thousand dollars. I guess taxonomists are the new artists, expected to starve for the sake of their research and just be happy that we’re doing what we love. And God forbid we get creative when it comes to finding alternative funding sources. Definitely not acceptable.
Also, it’s not just the vendor that says species names will last forever, it’s also the governing body for animal taxonomy, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, assuming of course it meets all the requirements and rules.
“Taxonomists invest months confirming that a specimen is new to science.”
Right. “Months”. Fun fact: most new species take YEARS to reach publication. In fact, the average time from collection to description for a new species is 21 years, but sure, we’ll just round down to “months”, no big deal.
“They sift through obscure literature — often in a different language and lamentably illustrated. More months are spent on the species’ description, which must be accurate enough to enable future taxonomists (should they survive the sixth mass extinction) to confirm that their ‘new’ species is different.”
The most accurate & unobjectionable section of the entire letter (except for that tricky “months” thing). Full marks.
“Eventually, they publish their work in a systematics journal with an impact factor typically below 2 — even when the species is a previously undescribed mammal (the olinguito Bassaricyon neblina, pictured; see K. M. Helgen et al. ZooKeys 324, 1–83; 2013).”
Hey, thanks for reminding us that other biologists, including theoretical ecologists, have systemically neglected to cite the taxonomic literature, ultimately leading to that embarrassing impact factor you threw out there. Sorry we can’t all publish letters in Nature with its 42.351 impact factor (aside: why on earth are we calculating impact factors to the thousandth of an impact?). One way you could help alleviate this problem, besides publishing disparaging remarks about our work in your high impact journals, is to consistently and properly cite taxonomic names and literature: the olinguito’s proper name is Bassaricyon neblina Helgen, Pinto, Kays, Helgen, Tsuchiya, Quinn, Wilson & Maldonado, 2013. Remember kids: cite your sources, even when they’re lowly taxonomists.
Also, a minor-but-important point about how taxonomy works: by their very nature, new species are “previously undescribed”, otherwise they are considered junior synonyms and shouldn’t be published anywhere, regardless of impact factor. I would like to think that all biologists would understand this basic taxonomic rule, but then again:
“These low impact factors make it hard for taxonomists to land positions in academia, and job opportunities in museums are sparse.”
I may slag impact factors as much as the next taxonomist, but even I don’t believe they’re the reason we’re being excluded from academia. That blame I lay squarely on the shift by academic institutions away from whole organism biology towards the “sexy”, and strongly funded, worlds of molecular and cellular biology. Who cares that more and more biologists wouldn’t know where to look for their study organisms in the wild, or how to differentiate them from their taxonomic cousins; that’s what biological supply companies are for. Of course, E.O. Wilson pointed all of this out 40 years ago, and academia has done nothing to fix the issue since then, but I’m sure this letter is what everyone has been waiting for.
“Selling perpetuity on eBay is starting to look like an attractive alternative.”
Because living and working on the hope that someone will give you $4,500 is the definition of “attractive”, and all those other academics in their ivory towers with benefits, tenure, and salaries in the 5-6 figures are just jealous.
So, basically, we taxonomists should stop prostituting our research to the highest bidder, publish in higher impact journals, and resign ourselves to a future void of funding, respect, or job security.
Got it. Thanks Dr. Strona, it all makes perfect sense now.
—
Here’s a PDF of the eBay auction page in case it disappears.
Strona, G. 2015. Species naming: Taxonomic glory easier on eBay? Nature. 523: 35.
Fantastic.
Excellent deduction, truly an outstanding article. I loved the detective work you did tracing the link between the listing-associated taxonomist and the author of the paper.
Dr Kritsky is indeed an internationally known and greatly respected scientist on the taxonomy of Monogenoidea (Mongenea). He was my major professor (before anybody goes after my name in the net). He has a lot more than only 104 papers published and has been recognized as the scientist that described the largest number of species in this group at all times (more than 400) . Despite his productivity and the quality of his studies, he has only few times actually received (if any) external funding for his research. Not even from NSF. He is a model scientist and deserves all the respect a person with his knowledge and professionalism should. He has indeed “sold” the right to suggest specific epithets – about twice (for far less than the many thousands of dollars mentioned in the add). From what I remember, all that huge amount of money was transformed into slides, coverslips, stains, and travel to collect. But, anything justifies getting a letter in Nature, right?
I liked the text a lot. I guess I will follow the suggestion and will “stop prostituting our research to the highest bidder, publish in higher impact journals, and resign ourselves to a future void of funding, respect, or job security.” 😀
“Morgan, it seems that we greatly misunderstood Dr. Strona’s position in the letter, most likely influenced by a misleading title. The text, itself was also not straightforward until the last paragraph. HOWEVER, the point of your blog and the position of Dr. Strona are exactly the same. Taxonomists are in trouble, especially the young, recently graduated ones. These are though times to be a taxonomist, especially a traditional (morphology-based) one. It is almost impossible to find a position in academics with a taxonomy-oriented training.
In part, this is due to the code itself, in my case the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature that does not require ecologists, molecular biologists (among others) and us to present the reference to the paper that proposed the cited species in their papers. If this were done, we would likely increase the citation of our papers on taxonomy. The code, however, was not created in a time in which citation was as valued as today.
However, it is my feeling that this “game” of impact factor, especially those produced by biased methods, can not last forever since the cost to the science of biology may too high. The number o factual citations of a paper has nothing to do with the quality of the work; it has to do with how popular that specific subject is during the next 2-4 years after publication. The logic is very simple. If a same lab is capable of publishing non-taxonomy papers in journals with high IF but cannot find journals with comparable IF for his/her manuscripts in taxonomy, the issue is clearly NOT the difference in quality, correct? It is an unfair game. Many of those journals with high IF in biology have eliminated taxonomy as a scope since it presumably yields low OFFICIAL citation counts!
Young professor trained in taxonomy, many of which I know (and that includes Dr Strona himself – he has many papers in basic taxonomy), are trying to survive in a severe environment that considers taxonomy a less-scientific field. Many are obligated to switch into more popular areas in order to get a job. That certainly increases the so-called taxonomic impediment to the point that the science of taxonomy may be lost for good in the near future and we, as science, will have to learn it all over again! Fortunately, some countries, like Brazil, are lagging on this tendency and taxonomists are not under the same pressure. Maybe these countries will represent the “refugia” for taxonomy when the rest of the world finally understands the damage of the present system of evaluation. When WE actually understand that quality and popularity are NOT each other proxies.
Finally, sorry for misreading you text, Dr. Strona. I am sure that the “soul” of your intended message was loss in editing and by an ambiguous title that suggested disapproval.”
Dear Morgan D. Jackson,
I think you have completely misunderstood Strona’s article. It seems that you have spent at lot of time in analyzing Strona’s article word by word, but you misunderstood the main message, which is exactly the opposite of what you say.
It is possible that Strona’s article was too short and badly written for an in-depth comprehension, but it is obvious that it was not an attack to taxonomists. On the contrary, it is a defence of taxonomy. Strona’s aim was to attract the attention to the fact that taxonomists are disadvantaged in the academic arena because their work does not receive an appropriate consideration. Impact factors are frequently used as a measure to evaluate the quality of scientific works and hence play a certain role in determining a scientist’s career. To illustrate how publishing in taxonomic journals can be wrongly penalising taxonomists, Strona cited the case of a new species of mammal that was described in a low-impact journal, although finding new mammals is an exceptional discovery.
As regards the case of Dr Kritsky, Strona just reported it as a demonstration of how the frustrating lack of funds for taxonomic studies can force a respected taxonomist to search for unusual sources of money. Kritsky’s idea of selling species names is reported as paradigmatic example of the crisis of taxonomy, it is not attack to Kritsky.
The taxonomic crisis has generated a number of public appeals to invest more money in taxonomy. Such appeals have been sometimes perceived, by non-taxonomists, as merely boring litanies. Preconceptions that impede taxonomists to recognize even those that appreciate and defend them do not serve the taxonomic cause.
Cheers,
Simone Fattorini
Hi Simone,
I’m sorry, but “too short and badly written” is hardly a convincing defence for what was an insulting article. It may have been submitted with the best of intentions, but if even the most empathetic readers (taxonomists, like myself) fail to see Dr. Strona’s letter as anything but a(nother) slap in the face, then I highly doubt it will have any of the intended consequences on the rest of the scientific population.
Nature reaches an audience many thousands of times larger than my measly little site, and so any objection to the original, as well as any defence/explanation of the author’s intentions will go completely unheard by those who most need to read it. Sometimes trying to say something and failing is worse than saying nothing at all.
Dear Morgan Jackson,
I’m sure that if you will re-read the letter peacefully and without prejudice (as probably most of Nature’s readers will read this paper), its true meaning will appear clear also to you.
Cheers,
Simone
Interesting blog! Given that I’m tired of seeing skilled taxonomists prostituting their important, unique and special talents, I’ve increased the going price for this rare naming opportunity on eBay by more than 100%, to $10.000.00.
Good for you! I think $10,000 is still a steal of a deal for a new species. I hope someone jumps on the opportunity and helps fund further research!