Taxonomic Chauvinism and the Methodologically Challenged

R concern has been raised over the existence of obvious taxonomic biases in contemporary literature on ecology, evolution, and conservation biology (Bonnet et al. 2002, Stein et al. 2002, Clark and May 2002a, 2002b). For example, Bonnet and colleagues (2002) show that that an apparent, albeit subliminal, bias toward homeothermic (endothermic) fauna affords research on these groups greater publication success relative to “unpopular” poikilotherms (ectotherms). There is no doubt that such a trend is undesirable. Although the use of model organisms is an effective approach to start with, as the discipline advances, looking beyond a small set of popular homeotherms such as birds and small mammals is essential for greater generality in theoretical as well as applied ecology and evolutionary biology. For instance, Lawton and colleagues (1998) give an empirical demonstration of the need for a multitaxon approach in conservation biology, a discipline that clearly suffers from taxonomic bias (Clark and May 2002b). Focusing attention on charismatic organisms such as eagles and tigers may attract public support and funds for conservation, but such an approach often underrepresents the vast majority of species, many of which are at great risk of extinction (Stein et al. 2002). To these concerns I would like to add another. Scientific proclivity is also influenced by taxon-specific limitations that render certain biotic groups more difficult to work with than others. Biases such as editorial chauvinism against certain organisms may develop inadvertently (Bonnet et al. 2002), but the fact that inherent differences between groups make some more difficult to study than others must not be ignored while searching for the roots of such predilections. Rather than ectothermy or endothermy alone, these limitations are governed by the overall life history of each biotic group. These group-specific difficulties can be as fundamental as taxonomy and sampling methodology. Poor standardization of taxonomy, for instance, can result in unreliable taxon identification, and poor standardization of sampling methodology can result in inefficient or inappropriate field sampling methods. Ultimately, a prevalence of such problems in certain biota may discourage research on them. Methodological problems often undermine the deductive power and reliability of research seriously. For example, if the species diversity of a biotic group in an area is to be sampled, lack of a standardized sampling protocol can make it difficult to obtain reliable richness–abundance estimates efficiently, thereby increasing the effort required to obtain adequate samples. This can have two obvious consequences.First, resource limitations will tend to polarize research toward “easy” biotic groups. Second, in groups that tend to have poorly standardized research methodology, low-investment studies will be at a distinct disadvantage, leading to a disproportionately low representation of such studies on those groups. In the case of the cash-strapped field of tropical biology (James et al. 2001), the importance of these factors is intensified because limited time and material resources restrict research efforts. This is a serious problem, because the increasingly frequent need for urgent conservation attention in tropical regions worldwide makes short-term studies crucial for quick assays.