Taxonomy and the GTI
What is the GTI?
The Global Taxonomy Initiative was started by governments, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and is implemented by many actors including governments, non-government and international organisations, as well as taxonomists and the institutions where they work. Taxonomy is important for all types of ecosystems, and therefore the initiative is a cross-cutting issue applicable to all of the work under the Convention.
Why the GTI?
Taxonomy is the science that detects, describes, names and, through the application of the theory of evolution, classifies all organisms. Through this process taxonomists have achieved far-going causal understanding of past and present biodiversity. Although in the framework of the CBD only extant organisms are considered, taxonomists also study extinct life forms, including so-called neo-extinctions that result from human interference, either directly (e.g. hunting to the very last individual, cf. the dodo) or indirectly (e.g. habitat perturbation by pollution, cf. the Chinese dolphin or baije).
Without taxonomy, none of the three objectives of the CBD can be met, not proximally at the national echelon, not ultimately at the global level. How can one adequately conserve biodiversity if one does not know its composing organisms? How can one sustainably use the components of biodiversity if one does not know unambiguously what these components are? How can one fairly and equitably share the genetic resources that arise from the diversity of life if one cannot characterise/differentiate the distinctive bearers of those resources?
In short, the CBD craves for taxonomic data and expertise because the CBD needs:
- unique scientific names that denominate the components of biodiversity,
- the identifiers that underscore these names (e.g. characters and their states, gene sequences, distribution patterns etc.) and,
- the tools that taxonomy delivers to recognise the diversity of life (e.g. identification keys, barcodes, databases with taxonomic information, etc.).
Unfortunately, knowledge gaps in the taxonomy of many taxa continue to exist and the taxonomic workforce needed to cure these gaps is largely missing, especially in the mega-diverse countries of the developing world. A problem that the CBD has recognised as ‘the taxonomic impediment'. In order to resolve this taxonomic impediment, the Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI) was set up under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Its overacting objectives are:
- adequately assess the global and the local taxonomic needs;
- swiftly develop a satisfying amount of human and infrastructural capacity so that taxonomic research will speed up;
- improve the access to taxonomic know-how and information and, thereby improve decision-making in biological conservation.
More information on why taxonomy matters is available on the site of BioNET INTERNATIONAL.
How the GTI operates?
Since the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP-6) an operational programme of work (PoW) for the GTI has been endorsed (Decision VI/8). This PoW set the following 5 operational objectives:
- Operational objective 1 - Assess taxonomic needs and capacities at national, regional and global levels for the implementation of the Convention.
- Operational objective 2 - Provide focus to help build and maintain the human resources, systems and infrastructure needed to obtain, collate and curate the biological specimens that are the basis for taxonomic knowledge.
- Operational objective 3 - Facilitate an improved and effective infrastructure/system for access to taxonomic information; with priority on ensuring that countries of origin gain access to information concerning elements of their biodiversity.
- Operational objective 4 - Within the major thematic work programmes of the Convention include key taxonomic objectives to generate information needed for decision-making in conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components.
- Operational objective 5 - Within the work on cross-cutting issues of the Convention, include key taxonomic objectives to generate information needed for decision-making in conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components.
At its eighth meeting, the COP carried out an in depth revision of the PoW and made some amendments and additions in Decision VIII/3. Most eye-catching was the request to: (i) develop specific taxonomic, outcome-oriented and timed deliverables for each of the planned activities of the PoW, (ii) establish a widely accessible checklist of known species names and, (iii) set on track a special fund for the GTI.
Arising from Decision VIII/3, Decision IX/22 endorsed the identified set of outcome-oriented deliverables, and emphasised that continuing capacity-building activities in taxonomy (including taxonomic training) would be needed to implement them. Decision IX/22 can safely be considered an important step forward for the GTI as it resonates the call for effective taxonomic work louder then ever and, more important, sets specific and timed targets for taxonomic output. Some of these targets are very clear (e.g. keys to the bee genera of the world by 2012; produce a guide to the major groups of marine algae by 2012,...), others remain more vague (e.g. complete taxonomic needs assessments for at least two thematic areas or cross-cutting issues of the CBD by the end of 2009), others mere repetition of work already in progress (e.g. checklist of known species names).
Course
- Taxonomy and the Belgian National Focal Point to the GTI (pdf format,
)
- Taxonomie et le Point focal belge pour l'ITM (format pdf,
)
References
Abbott, A. 2008. Hidden treasures: The University History Museum in Pavia. Nature 451: 526.
Agnarsson, I. & Kunter, M. 2007. Taxonomy in a Changing World: Seeking Solutions for a Science in Crisis. Systematic Biology 56: 531-539.
Agosti, D. 2006. Biodiversity data are out of local taxonomists' reach. Nature 439: 392.
Agosti, D. & Johnson, N.F. 2002. Taxonomists need better access to published data. Nature 417: 222.
Anon, 1998a. The Darwin Declaration, Environment Australia, Canberra.
Anon, 1998b, The Global Taxonomy Initiative: Using Systematic Inventories to meet Country and Regional Needs, DIVERSITAS, Systematics Agenda 2000, New York.
Anon, 1999. Mechanism for Management of the Global Taxonomy Initiative, with a consideration on inclusion of traditional and indigenous knowledge perspectives on current taxonomic systems. Report of meeting held 20 December 1999, UNESCO, Paris.
Anon, 2007. The legacy of Linnaeus. Nature 446: 231-232.
Anon, 2008. Secret treasure-troves restored. Nature 451: 500.
Backeljau, T., Van Goethem, J. & Wouters, K. 1995. New Trends in Systematics and Taxonomy. N.S.T. 13: 201-20
Baily, L.H. 1917. The modern systematist. Science 44: 623-629.
Balmford, A., et al. 2005. The convention on biological diversity's 2010 target. Science 307: 212-213. suppl.
Balmford, A. et al. 2002. Why Conservationists Should Heed Pokemon. Science 295: 2367b.
Belgian National Focal point to the GTI, 2004. Belgian Report on the Implementation of the programme of work of the Global taxonomy Initiative. 25 pp.
Blackmore, S. 2002. Biodiversity Update – Progress in Taxonomy. Science 298: 365.
Bisby, F.A., Shimura, J., Ruggiero, M., Edwards, J. & Haeuser, C. 2002. Taxonomy, at the click of a mouse. Nature 418: 367.
Bisby, F.A. & Ruggiero, M. 2005. Half a million species: The Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life and the GTI. CBD Technical Series 21:179-181.
Blaxter, M.L. 2004. The promise of DNA taxonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 669-679.
Blaxter, M. & Floyd, R. 2003. Molecular taxonomics for biodiversity surveys: already a reality. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18: 268-269.
- Bomby P. et al. 2005. Global Taxonomy Initiative in Italy: Supporting the 2010 goal.CBD Technical Series 21:173-176.
Boero, F. 2001. Light after dark: the partnership for enhancing expertise in taxonomy. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 16: 266.
- Bombi, P. et al. 2005. Global Taxonomy Initiative in Italy: supporting the 2010 Goal.Taylor, A. 2005. CBD Technical Series 21:173-176.
Bouchet, P. 2006. The magnitude of marine biodiversity. Carlos M.Duarte (Ed.).The Exploration of Marine Biodiversity. Scientific and Technological Challenges.Fundaccion BBVA 31-64.
Cachuela-Palacio, M. 2006. Towards an index of all known species: the Catalogue of Life, its rationale, design and use. Integrative Zoology 1: 18-21.
- Carmaran, C., Ponce, M. & Conforti, V. 2005. State of the Implementation of the Global Taxonomy Initiative in Argentina. CBD Technical Series 21:171-172.
Carvalho, M.R. et al. 2005. Revisiting the Taxonomic Impediment. Science 307: 353.
Carvalho, M.R. et al. 2007. Taxonomic Impediment of Impediment to Taxonomy? A Commentary on Systematics and the Cybertaxonomic Paradigm. Evol. Biol. 34: 140-143.
Causey D., Janzen D.H. Peterson A.T., Vieglais D., Krishtalka L., Beach J.H., Wiley O. 2004. Museum Collections and Taxonomy. Science 305:1106.
Costello, M.J., Bouchet, P., Emblow, C.S. & Legakis, A. 2006. European marine biodiversity inventory and taxonomic resources: state of the art and gaps in knowledge. Marine Ecology Progress series 316: 257-268.
Crane, P.R. 2004. Documenting plant diversity: unfinished business. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 735-737.
Crisci, J.V. 2006a. One-Dimensional Systematist: Perils in a Time of Steady Progress. Systematic Botany 31: 217-221.
Crisci, J.V. 2006b. Making Taxonomy Visible. Systematic Botany 31: 439-440.
- Darwin Initiative Secretariat. 2005. Contributions of the Darwin Initiative to the Global Taxonomy Initiative. CBD Technical Series 21:167-170.
Dayrat, B. 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 407-415.
Dayton, P.K. 2003. The Importance of the Natural Sciences to Conservation. The American Naturalist 162: 1-13.
Disney, H. 1998. Rescue plan needed for taxonomy. Nature 394: 120.
DIVERSITAS, 1998. The Global Taxonomy Initiative: Shortening the Distance Between Discovery and Delivery. Report of a meeting held at the Linnean Society, London, UK on September 10-11 1998.
DIVERSITAS, 1999. The Global Taxonomy Initiative: recommendations from DIVERSITAS Element 3, including an assessment of present knowledge of key species groups. Report of a DIVERSITAS/Systematics Agenda 2000 meeting held at ICSU, Paris, France on February 20-21 1999.
Ebach, M.C. & Holdrege, C. 2005. More Taxonomy, Not DNA Barcoding. BioScience 55: 822-823.
Ejnavarzala H. 2010. DNA barcoding: access to biodiversity and benefit-sharing policy issues in the Indian context. Current Science 99(5): 594-600.
Ellis, J.S., Knight, E., Carvell, C. & Coulson, D. Cryptic species identification: a simple diagnostic tool for discriminating between two problematic bumblebee species. Molecular Ecology Notes 6: 540-542.
Esselstyn, J.A. 2007. Should universal guidelines be applied to taxonomic research. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 90: 761-764.
Evenhuis, N.L. 2007. Helping Solve the "Other" Taxonomic Impediment: Completing the Eight Steps to Total Enlightenment and Taxonomic Nirvana. Zootaxa 1407: 3-12.
Fisher, B. & Cjristopher, T. 2007. Poverty and biodiversity: Measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecological Economics 62: 93-101.
Flowers, R.W. 2007. Comments on "Helping Solve the 'Other' Taxonomic Impediment: Completing the eight Steps to Total Enlightenment and Taxonomic Nirvana" by Evenhuis (2007). Zootaxa 1494: 67-68.
Fukami, H., Budd, A.F., Pauley, G., Solé-Cava, A., Chen, C.A., Iwao, K. & Knowlton, N. 2004. Conventional taxonomy obscures deep divergence between Pacific and Atlantic corals. Nature 427: 832-835.
- Gaston, K.J., May, R.M. 1992. Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356: 281-282.
Gaston, K.J. & O'Neill, M.A. 2004. Automated species identification: why not? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B. 359: 655-667.
Geeta, R., Levy, A., Hoch, J. M. & Mark, M. 2004. Taxonomists and the CBD. Science 305: 1105.
Gewin, V. 2002. All living things, online. Nature 418: 362-363.
Godfray, H.C.J. 2002a. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417: 17-19.
Godfray, H.C.J. 2002b. Towards taxonomy’s ‘glorious revolution’. Nature 420: 461.
Godfray, H.C.J 2002c. How might more systematics be funded? Antenna, 26: 11-17.
Godfray H.C.J. 2006. To boldly sequence. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21: 603-604.
Godfray, H.C J. 2007. Linnaeus in the information age. Nature 446: 259-260.
Godfray, H.C.J. & Knapp, S. 2004. Introduction (one contribution of 19 to a Theme Issue ‘Taxonomy for the twentyfirst century’). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 559-569.
Godfray, H.C.J., Clark, B.R., Kitching, J., Mayo, J & Scobble M.J. 2007. The Web and the Structure of Taxonomy. Systematic Biology 56: 943-955.
Golding, J.S. 2004. The use of specimen information influences the outcomes of Red List assessments: the case of southern African plant specimens. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 773-780.
Gotelli, N.J. 2004. A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 585-597.
Gregory, T.R. 2005. DNA barcoding does not compete with taxonomy. Nature 434: 1067.
Haas, F. & Haüser, Ch. 2005. The European GTI Toolkit: Capacity-building for the Global Taxonomy Initiative. CBD Technical Series 21: 122-124.
Haas, F. & Haüser, Ch. 2005. Taxonomists: an endangered species. CBD Technical Series 21: 87-89.
Hariharan, G.N. & Balaij, P. 2002. Taxonomic Research in India. Current Science 83: 1068-1070.
- Hart, M. 2010. The case of the vanishing taxonomists. Saturday's Globe and Mail, Friday 3 September 2010
Halanych, K.M. & Goertzen, L.R. 2009. Grand Challenges in organismal biology: The need to develop both theory and resources. Integrative and Comparative Biology 49: 475-479.
Hebert, P.D.N. & Gregory, T.R. 2005. The Promise of DNA Barcoding for Taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54: 852-859.
Hedgpeth, J.W., Menzies, R.J., Hand, C.H. & Burkenroad, M.D. 1953. On Certain Problems of Taxonomists. Science 117: 17-18.
Herre, E.A. 2006. Barcoding helps biodiversity fly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA 103: 3949-3950.
His Majesty The Emperor of Japan 2007. Linnaeus and taxonomy in Japan. Nature 448: 139-140.
Hoagland, K.E. 1996. The Taxonomic Impediment and the Convention on Biodiversity. Association of Systematics Collections Newsletter 24: 61-67.
Hopkins G.W. & Freckleton R.P. 2002. Declines in the number of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 5: 245-249.
Ibrahim, N. 2007. Berlin shows how natural history can pull the crowds. Nature 448: 864.
Janzen, D.H. 2004. Now is the time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 731 732.
Jaspars, M. 1998. Tough time for taxonomy. Nature 394: 413.
Joly, C.A. 2006. Taxonomy: programmes developing in the South too. Nature 440: 24.
Kim, K.C. & Byrne, LB. 2006. Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science. Ecological Research 21: 794-810.
- Klopper, R.R., Smith, G.F., Chikuni, A.C. 2002. The Global Taxonomy Initiative in Africa. Taxon 51: 159-165.
Knapp, S., Bateman, R.M., Chalmer, N.R., Humphries, C.J., Rainbow, P.S., Smith, A.B., Taylor, P.D., Vane-Wright, R.I. & Wilkinson, M. 2002. Taxonomy needs evolution not revolution. Nature 419: 559.
Knapp, S., Polaszek, A. & Watson, M. 2007. Spreading the word. Nature 446: 261-262.
Korf, R.P. 2005. Reinventing taxonomy: a curmudgeon's view of 250 years of fungal taxonomy, the crisis in biodiversity and the pitfalls of the phylogenetic age. Mycotaxon 93: 407-415.
Krell, F.-T. 2004. Parataxonomy vs. Taxonomy in biodiversity studies - pitfalls and applicability of 'morphospecies' sorting. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 795-812.
Kumar, S. 2007. Taxonomy, the legacy of Linnaeus, transformed to phylogenomics. Curreny Science 92:1475.
Kutschera, U. 2007. Leeches underline the need for linnaean taxonomy. Nature 447: 775.
Lee, M.S.Y. 2002. Online database could end taxonomic anarchy. Nature 417: 787.
Lipscomb, D., Platnick, N. & Wheeler, Q. 2003. The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 65-66.
Lughadha, E.L. 2004. Towards a working list of all known plant species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 681-687.
Lyal, C.H.C. & Weitzman, A.L. 2004. Taxonomy: Exploring the Impediment. Science 305:1106.
Mallet, J. & Willmott, K. 2003. Taxonomy: renaissance or Tower of Babel? TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18: 57-59.
Marshall, E. 2005. Will DNA Bar Codes Breathe Life Into Classification? Science 307: 1037.
Martin, J.T. 2004. Taxonomists and Conservation. Science 305:1104.
May, R.M. 2004. Tomorrow's taxonomy: collecting new species in the field will remain the rate-limiting step. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 733-734.
McCarter, J., Boge, G. & Darlow, G. 2001. Safeguarding the World's Natural Treasures. Science 294: 2099-2101.
McNeely, J., 2002. The role of taxonomy in conserving biodiversity. Journal of Nature Conservation,10: 145-153.
Menoui, M. 2005. Taxonomie mariene au Maroc: état des lieux et problématiques. CBD Technical Series 21: 96-99.
Millien, V., Lyons, S.K., Olson, L., Smith, F.A., Wilson, A.B. & Yom-Tov, Y. 2006. Ecotypic variation in the context of global climate change: revisiting the rules. Ecology Letters 9: 853-869.
Miller, G. 2005. Linnaeus’s Legacy Carries On. Science 307: 1038-1039.
Miller, S.E., Kress, W.J. & Samper, C. 2004. Crisis for Biodiversity Collections. Science 303: 310.
Monro, A.K., Jones, D.T. & Araujo, M.E. 2006. Taxonomic capacity can improve environmental and economic sustainability in biodiversity-rich shade coffee farms in El Salvador. Systematics and Biodiversity 4: 1-8.
Oren, A. 2004. Prokaryote diversity and taxonomy: current status and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 623-638.
Oren, A. & Stackebrandt, E. 2002. Prokaryote taxonomy online: challenges ahead. Nature 419: 15.
Packer, L., Grixti, J.C., Roughley, R.E. @ Hanner, R. 2009. The status of taxonomy in Canada and the impact of DNA barcoding. Can J. Zool. 87: 1097-1110.
Padial, J M. & De La Riva, I. 2007. Taxonomy, the Cinderella of science, hidden by its evolutionary stepsister. Zootaxa 1577: 1-2.
Payne, R.B. & Sorenson, M.D. 2002. Museum Collections as Sources of Genetic Data. Bonner zoologische Beiträge 51: 97-104.
Philippe, H. & Telford, M.J. 2006. Large-scale sequencing and the new animal phylogeny. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution. 21: 614-620.
Pimm, S.L. 2002. The Dodo went extinct (and other ecological myths). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89: 190-198.
Pohja, M. 2002. Complexity of inventorying the global biological diversity: Meeting demands of the Convention on Biological Diversity; collecting and export permits, loans of specimens and dissemination of data. MSc Thesis, University of Turku, 106 pp.
Ponder, W.F., Carter, G.A., Flemons, P. & Chapman, R.R. 2001. Evaluation of Museum Collection Data for Use in Biodiversity Assessment. Conservation Biology 15: 648-657.
Por, F.D. 2007. A "taxonomic affidavit": Why it is needed. Integrative Zoology 2: 57-59.
Prance, G.T. 2001. The Relevance of Systematics to the Twenty-first Century. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences 7.
Proudlove, G. & Wood, P.J. 2003. The blind leading the blind: cryptic subterranean species and DNA taxonomy. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18: 272-273.
Raven, P.H. 2004. Taxonomy: where are we now? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 729-730.
Raven, P.H. & Wilson, E.O. 1992. A fifty year plan for biodiversity studies. Science 238: 1099-1100.
Rodman, J.E. & Cody, J.H. 2003. The Taxonomic Impediment Overcome: NSF's Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) as a Model. Systematic Zoology 52: 428-435.
Ronquist, F. & Gärdenfors, U. 2003. Taxonomy and biodiversity inventories: time to deliver. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18: 269-270.
Samper, C. 2004. Taxonomy and Environmental policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 721-728.
Samyn, Y. & Massin, C. 2002. Taxonomists’ requiem. Science 295: 276-277.
Samyn, Y., Vanden Spiegel, D., Franklin, A., Réveillon, A., Segers, H. & Van Goethem, J.L. 2004. The Belgian Focal Point to the Global Taxonomy Initiative and its role in strengthening individual and institutional taxonomic capacity for, inter alia, sea cucumbers. In: Lovatelli, A., Conand, C., Purcell S., Hamel, J.-F., Mercier, A. (eds), Advances in Sea Cucumber Aquaculture and Management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 463: 415-418.
Samyn, Y., Franklin, A., Réveillon, A. & Van Goethem, J.L. 2005. Capacity Building for the Global Taxonomy Initiative: The Approach of the Belgian GTI Focal Point. CBD Technical series 17: 118-121.
Samyn, Y., Réveillon, A., Franklin, A. & Van Goethem, J.L. 2005. Sense and sensibility in taxonomic capacity building. CBD Technical series 21: 113-116.
Samyn, Y., Réveillon, A, Franklin, A. & Van Goethem, J. 2006. One Year of Taxonomic Capacity Building by the Belgian Focal Point to the GTI. Proceedings of the 3rd GBIF Science Symposium: 134-142.
Savolainen, V. & Chase, M.W. 2003. Europe’s Fight for the Tree of Life. Science 302: 1894.
Scoble, M.J. 2004. Unitary or unified taxonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 699-710.
Schmitt, W.L. 1954. Applied Systematics: the Usefulness of Scientific Names of Animals and Plants. 1954 Smithsonian Report: 323-337.
Seberg, O. et al. 2003. Shortcuts in systematics? A commentary on DNA-based taxonomy. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18: 63-65.
Schindel, D.E. & Miller, S. 2005. DNA Barcoding and the Consortium for the Barcoding of Life. CBD Technical Series 21: 144-146.
Scholes, R.J. et al. 2008. Toward a Global Biodiversity Observing System. Science 321: 1044-1045.
Scoble, M.J. 2004. Unitary or unified taxonomy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 699-710.
Seberg, O. et al. 2003. Shortcuts in systematics? A commentary of DNA-based taxonomy. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution 18: 63-65.
Smith, D. 2004. Linnean Society backs Godfray on use of web. Nature 431: 17.
- Smith, G.F. 2009. Capacity building in taxonomy and systematics. Taxon 58: 697-699.
Soltis, P.S. 2007. Linnaeus lives on. Nature 448: 868-869. Stevens, P.F. 2002. History of Taxonomy. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 3 pp.
Suarez, A.V. & Tsutsui, N.D. 2004. The Value of Museum Collections for Research and Society. BioScience 54: 66-74.
Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R.H. & Vogler, A.P. 2003. A plea for DNA taxonomy. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 70-74.
Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R.H. & Vogler, A.P. 2002. DNA points the way ahead in taxonomy. Nature 418:479.
- Taylor, A. 2005. UK Implementation of the Global Taxonomy Initiative. CBD Technical Series 21:177-178.
Thiele, K. & Yeates, D. 2002. Tension arises from duality at the heart of taxonomy. Nature 419: 337.
- Tillier, S. et al. 2005. The European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy (EDI): a network for integration of taxonomy suported by the European Commission. CBD TechnicalSeries 21: 127-128.
Tillier, S. & Roberts, D. 2006. Taxonomy on the fly in a European web project. Nature 440: 24.
- UNESCO/WWF International & BioNET-INTERNATIONAL 1999. Mechanisms for management of the GTI, with a consideration on inclusion of traditional and indigenous knowledge perspectives on current taxonomic systems. Report of meeting held 20 December,1999 at UNESCO, Paris, 9 pp.
Valdecasas, A. G., Williams, D. & Wheeler, Q. D. 2008. 'Integrative taxonomy' then and now: a response to Dayrat (2005). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 93: 211-216.
Van Goethem, J.L. 1998. Het verdrag inzake biologische diversiteit en de opvolging ervan in België. Biologisch Jaarboek Dodonea 66: 49-88.
Van Goethem, J.L. & Backeljau, T. 1997. History and value of the malacological collections of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. In: J.R.Nudds & C.W.Pettitt (eds) The Value and validation of Natural Science Collections 258-262.
- Van Goethem, J.L., Wouters, K. & Backeljau, T. 1995. The Royal Belgian Institute of natural Sciences and the Role of Natural History Collections in Biodiversity Research. N.S.T. 13: 205-209.
Vogel, G. 2004. Berlin's Scientific Treasure House Shakes Off the Dust. Science 305: 35-37.
Wheeler, Q.D. 1995. Systematics, the scientific basis for inventories of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 476-489.
Wells, A. & Colreavy, M. 2005. Australia and the Global Taxonomy Initiative: the contribution of the Australian Biological Resources Study. CBD Technical Series 21:154-157.
Wheeler, Q.D. 2004. Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 571-583.
Wheeler, Q.D., Raven, P.H. & Wilson, E.O. 2004. Taxonomy: Impediment or Expedient? Science 303: 285.
Wheeler, Q.D. 2005. Losing the plot: DNA “barcodes” and taxonomy. Cladistics 21: 405-407.
Whitfield, J. 2007. We are family. Nature 446: 247-249.
Wilson, E.O. 2003. The encyclopedia of life. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 77-80.
Wilson, E.O. 2004. Taxonomy as a fundamental discipline. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 739.
Young, A.M. 2004. Taxonomy and Natural History. Science 305: 1107.
Zhang, Z.-Q. 2008. Contributing to the progress of descriptive taxonomy. Zootaxa 1968: 65-68.
Zhang, Z.-Q. 2011. Describing unexplored biodiversity: Zootaxa in the International Year of Biodiversity. Zootaxa 2768: 1-4
More information is available in the Learn more folder.