How Many Things Are There? A Reply to Oliver and Beattie, Beattie and Oliver, Oliver and Beattie, and Oliver and Beattie

In a recent paper in this journal, Oliver and Beattie (1996:100) recapitulate and extend their earlier arguments that "the use of invertebrates in some monitoring and conservation research and practice depends neither on knowledge of the Latin binomial [sic] of the species involved nor on specialist examination of entire field samples." Given limited resources available to garner expert cooperation, Oliver and Beattie (1993, 1994, 1996) as well as Beattie and Oliver (1994) advocate the use of species counts by nonspecialists as a shortcut to the assessment of conservation priority and to the procedure of biological monitoring for conservation purposes. Prior to their recent contribution to this journal, the authors had suggested the general idea of "taxonomic minimalism" in three earlier papers. Oliver and Beattie (1993) first published their morphospecies approach in Conservation Biology under the title "A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity." This paper was followed by a shorter work in TREE entitled "Taxonomic minimalism" (Beattie & Oliver 1994) that largely recapitulated their first paper but in which the order of authorship was reversed. The publication of their third paper (Oliver & Beattie 1994) in a recent symposium volume was also entitled "A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity," and contained but a single reference-that of their first paper. To avoid redundancy of citation, I will address my comments to the authors generally except when making explicit references to relevant text. My primary concern is not so much their use of parataxonomy in estimating raw species richness, but rather the extension of such estimates to the setting of conservation priorities and establishment of protocols for biological monitoring. Parataxonomy, in one form or another, is widely accepted as a useful if not critical component of attempts to assess local and regional species richness in the tropics. In one conception, the role of the parataxonomist is one of a preliminary sorter of samples (usually invertebrate samples) prior to or in conjunction with their examination by specialists (Wheeler 1995). This practice cuts down on the amount of time required of the specialist in routine general sorting, allowing more time for accurate determinations. In such a context, parataxonomists are taxon specialists in their own right, having the benefit of accumulated field knowledge to collect uncommon, specialized forms rarely taken by less experienced workers. Another view of the parataxonomist, one advocated by Janzen (Langreth 1994) and embraced by Oliver and Beattie is one of a local person who collects whatever taxa scientists are currently sampling; that is, someone tied to an ecological study site who is used to collect all sorts of organisms. In general, this version of parataxonomy is conducted within the framework of ecological research designed to examine patterns of local species richness (Colwell & Coddington 1994). Oliver and Beattie have extended the "discipline" of parataxonomy (Beattie & Oliver 1994:488) as a substitute for, rather than a supplement to the examination of organisms by organismal biologists. In so doing they have argued against taxonomic knowledge-both at the level and below that of a scientist-in conducting faunistic studies. They have, further, argued a role for the "morphospecies approach" in conservation decision making. Oliver and Beattie first justify their approach on grounds that it is a more effective use of resources. This assertion was strongly rebutted by Brower (1995), who observed that the resources required to narrow the gap between morphospecies assessment by nonspecialists and inventory conducted by specialists weaken the cost Address correspondence to Paul Z. Goldstein at his current address. Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West @ 79th, New York, NY 10024, US.A., email zoltan@amnh.org Paper submitted April 8, 1996; revised manuscript accepted September 25, 1996.