Abstract
We read with great interest the correspondence article entitled “Taxonomic certification versus the scientific method” (Rogers 2012), and, as members of the Taxonomic Certification Committee of the Society for Freshwater Science (formerly, the North American Benthological Society [NABS, 1975–2011]) (SFS-TCC 2012), we agreed to respond in a constructive fashion with factual information to correct and provide perspective for a few errors, unfounded and confused assumptions, and misperceptions it presents. The nature and structure of the article and its title requires that our response be segregated into two main parts. First, we briefly describe the philosophy, purpose, and objectives of the Taxonomic Certification Program (TCP [http://www.sfstcp.com/]) as developed and administered by the SFS, including correcting inaccurate statements or false assumptions. Second, we will address the issues Rogers has with terminology used in a paper he cites (Stribling et al. 2003 [not 2002 as cited by Rogers]). The former issue is, by far, most important—primarily because it has the potential of adversely affecting a program that has already had a large positive impact on the quality of biological monitoring in the USA and Canada by recognizing laboratory staff with demonstrated ability to perform taxonomic identifications of benthic macroinvertebrate samples. The terminology issue is trivial, but because the comments are made in print, we correct them in print by rebutting Rogers’ perception that we were in error.
References
Brunialti, G., Giordani, P., Isocrono, D. & Loppi, S. 2002. Evaluation of data quality in lichen biomonitoring studies: the Italian experience. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 75, 271–280.
De Carvahlo, M.R., Bockmann, F.A., Amorim, D.S., Brandão, C.R.F., de Vivo, M., de Figueiredo, J.L., Britski, H.A., de Pinna, M.C.C., Menezes, N.A., Marques, F.P.L., Papavero, N., Crisci, J.V., Cancello, E.M., McEachran, J.D., Schelly, R.C., Lundberg, J.G., Gill, A. C., Britz, R., Wheeler, Q.D., Stiassny, M.L.J., Parenti, L.R., Page, L.M., Wheeler, W.C., Faivovich, J., Vari, R.P., Grande, L., Humphries, C.J., DeSalle, R., Ebach, M.C., and Nelson, G.J. (2007) Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evolutionary Biology, 34 (3–4), 140–143. [doi: 10.1007/s11692-007-9011-6]
Fitzhugh, K. (2005) The inferential basis of species hypotheses: The solution to defining the term ‘species.’ Marine Ecology, 26, 155–165.
Haase, P., Murray-Bligh, J., Lohse, S., Pauls, S., Sundermann, A., Gunn, R. & Clarke, R. (2006) Assessing the impact of errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samples. Hydrobiologia, 566, 505–521. [doi: 10.1007/s10750-006-0075-6]
Milberg, P., Bergstedt, J., Fridman, J., Odell, G. & Westerberg, L. (2008) Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19, 633–644. [doi: 10.3170/2008-8-18423]
Moulton, S.R., Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, T.F. and Short, T.M. 2000. Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Processing, taxonomy, and quality control of benthic macroinvertebrate samples. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 00– 212. National Water Quality Laboratory, US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
NIST (2012) Accreditation vs. certification. National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program. Gaithersburg, Maryland. Available from: http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/accreditation-vs-certification.cfm (Accessed 04/11/2012).
Popper, K.R. (2002) The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY, Routledge Classics, 1‒513. [First published in 1935: Logik der Forschung, Vienna, Austria, Verlag von Julius Springer, 481 pp.].
Rogers, D.C. (2012) Taxonomic certification versus the scientific method. Zootaxa, 3257, 66–68.
SFS-TCP (2012) Certification summary statistics. Society for Freshwater Science, Taxonomic Certification Programme. Available from: http://www.sfstcp.com/SFSTCPHome/CertificationSummaryStatistics/tabid/161/Default.aspx (Accessed 04/11/2012).
Stribling, J.B., Moulton, S.R., II & Lester, G.T. (2003) Determining the quality of taxonomic data. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22 (4), 621‒631.
Stribling, J.B., Pavlik, K.L., Holdsworth, S.M. & Leppo, E.W. (2008) Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27 (4), 906‒919. [doi: 10.1899/07-175.1.]
WVDEP (2011) Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Processing and/or Identification. Request for Quotations (RFQ.) No.: DEP15456. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Charleston, West Virginia.
Wheeler, Q.D. (2007) Invertebrate systematics or spineless taxonomy? Zootaxa, 1668, 11–18.
Wheeler, Q.D. & Platnick, N.I. (2000) Chapter 5. The Phylogenetic Species Concept. In: Q.D. Wheeler & R. Meier (editors), Species concepts and phylogenetic theory. A debate. New York, NY, Columbia University Press, 55‒69.