Roderic Page edited Summary_Although_both_taxonomy_and__.md  over 8 years ago

Commit id: 3e0b24fc4023a80aa84823fd6a60af69cb54f865

deletions | additions      

       

# Summary  Although both taxonomy and barcoding are actively digitisng the living world. The description of new animal taxa is essentially proceeding at a constant rate, generating a steadily growing legacy of taxonomic literature into which we have made modest digitisation inroads. In contrast, sequence databases as a whole are growing exponentially, barcode growth is more modest but still impressive. Nucleotide sequences are "born digital" and readily computable, for example they can be clustered into BINs of similar sequences, or phylogenies of the type shown in Fig. x. Given the obvious overlap between the goals of classical taxonomy and barcodes, the lack of digital overlap between these two endeavours is disconcerting. Many barcodes lack taxonomic names ("dark taxa"), and much of the primary taxonomic literature has not been digitised ("dark texts"). Integrating barcodes and taxonomy at scale is going to be significant challenge, and it as indeed will be integrating barcodes into mainstream sequence databases. It  is not clear that trying to achieve this integrate data  using taxonomic names is the best approach. But alternatives such as integration via specimens will be are  hampered by their  lack of stable identifiers.[need a concluding sentence]  As a postscript, in writing this opinion piece, I have had to write various custom scripts to query various databases in an _ad hoc_ manner, trying to assemble information that gives insight into the current state of biodiversity digitisation. For these analyses and visualisations to have broader utility it would be desirable to have some way of consistently and automatically doing these analyses, in effect creating a dashboard of digitisation that would enable us to not only see where we are as a field, but suggest directions in which we could be heading.