Abstract
Over the last 30 years or so there has been an increasing need for organism identification services. This has been the positive result of increased habitat monitoring, particularly as regards water quality. Organism diversity and community structure are used as an overall meter stick of habitat health and functionality, in a method referred to as biomonitoring. To meet the organism identification need, private and government laboratories specializing in identification work have been developed, particularly in North America, Europe and Australia. I myself have worked in this industry and was employed in either government or private laboratories over the last 18 years. These laboratories primarily identify benthic aquatic invertebrates, periphyton, phytoplankton, zooplankton and fish (both freshwater and marine).
References
AUSRIVAS (2009) Australian Rivers Assessment System Macroinvertebrate Training and Accreditation, Australian Government, Land and water Australia, 8 pp. Available from: http://www.ausrivas.canberra.edu.au/Bioassessment/Macroinvertebrates/Training/ (Accessed 9 July 2009).
Boegh, P. (2009) Taxonomy needs scientific driving licenses, WikiGenes.org, 1 pg. Available from: http://www.wikigenes.org/e/art/e/32.html (Accessed 9 July 2009).
Dayrat, B. (2005) Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 85, 407–415.
Franz, N. (2005) On the lack of good scientific reasons for the growing phylogeny/ classification gap. Cladistics, 21, 495–500.
International Commission on Botanical Nomenclature (2000) International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, (St Louis Code). Regnum Vegetabile, Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, 138 pp. Accessible at URL: http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0000St.Luistitle.htm.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2000) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth Edition, London, The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, xxix + 306 pp. Accessible at URL: http//www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp.
Linsley, E.G. & Usinger, R.L. (1959) Linnaeus and the development of the international code of zoological nomenclature, Systematic Zoology, 8, 39–47.
Lipscomb, D., Platnick, N.I. & Wheeler, Q.D. (2003) The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 65–66.
Mayr, E. & Ashlock, P.D. (1991) Principles of systematic zoology, 2ed. New York, McGraw-Hill.
North American Benthological Society (2009) Taxonomic Certification Programme, 22 pp. Available from: http://www.nabstcp.com/ (Accessed 9 July 2009).
Padial, J.M. & De La Riva, I. (2007) Taxonomy, the Cinderella of science, hidden by its evolutionary stepsister. Zootaxa, 1577, 1–2.
Stribling, J.B., Moulton, S.R., II & Lester, G.T. (2002) Determining the quality of taxonomic data. Journal of the North American benthological Society, 22, 621–631.
Torre-Bueno, J.R. de la (1989) The Torre-Bueno glossary of entomology; compiled by Stephen W. Nichols; including Supplement A by George S. Tulloch. New York, The New York Entomological Society, xvii + 840 pp.
Wheeler, Q.D. (2004) Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the royal Society, B, 359, 571–583.
Wheeler, Q.D. (2007) Invertebrate systematics or spineless taxonomy? Zootaxa, 1668, 11–18.
Wheeler, Q.D. (2008) Undisciplined thinking: morphology and Hennig’s unfinished revolution. Systematic Entomology, 33, 2–7.
Will, K.W. & Rubinoff, D. (2004) Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics, 20, 47–55.
Will, K.W., Mishler, B. D. & Wheeler, Q. D. (2005) The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 54, 844–851
Winston, J.E. (1999) Describing species: practical taxonomic procedure for biologists, New York, Columbia University Press, xx + 518 pp.