The Taxonomy 2028 Challenge - Shaping the future of biosystematics and taxonomy in Australasia

You’re invited to take part in the Taxonomy 2028 Challenge, to help create a vision for systematics and taxonomy in Australasia for the coming decade.

We’d like you to scan the horizon, and share what you see. Where would you like taxonomy and systematics to be in a decade? What achievements or programs would you like to see in place? What milestones would you like us to pass? What innovations in technology, infrastructure, funding or organisation will make a big difference to your work and to our taxonomy and systematics?

An inspiring and ambitious vision for the future is a key element of the Decadal Plan for Biosystematics and Taxonomy in Australasia 2018-2028, which is currently under development (see  

In thinking about this, please think in concrete terms. We’re after ideas that, after discussion and with broad community consensus, can be included in the Plan as specific objectives (such as projects, programs or milestones of activity) that will benefit both our science and our end-users. We will use these as hooks to argue for more resources, to create more visibility for our discipline, and to foster a more general appreciation and understanding of the value of taxonomy and systematics.

We also need to build the foundation for the next decade (2028-2038), so please think ahead.

The Taxonomy 2028 Challenge will work as follows. Please write a description of your idea. This should be fairly concise if possible, but your contribution could be a couple of lines, a paragraph, some dots points, a blog, or a full-blown discussion paper. Ideas cannot be too big, or too small (though we prefer big). If you have lots of ideas, please write separate pieces for each, unless they go together as a package. There’s no limit to the number of contributions per person.

In order to keep some consistency, please try to structure your contribution something like this:

  1. By 2028 we will … [the big idea]

  2. This will result in  …., …., …. [the impact]

  3. This matters because …., …., …. [the importance]

  4. Resources to achieve this will be …., …., …. [the details]

Please try to think in the context of your own work and research group, but also outside to biodiversity in general - the Plan, after all, will cover all of biodiversity. Goals such as “By 2028 we will develop a complete phylogeny of all [.....] in a cool genus beginning with C” may be a little narrow in scope.

It’s probably a good idea to discuss your ideas with colleagues and friends, either before or after you write the first draft.

When you’re ready, please email your contribution(s) to me at Indicate in the email whether you’re happy to be publicly acknowledged, or would prefer to remain anonymous.

All contributions will be published on noto|biotica for comment and discussion as they come in. At the close of the Challenge, we’ll analyse all contributions for common themes, and use them for further discussions including for sector meetings later in the year. All contributors will be acknowledged in the final Decadal Plan.

We’re very keen to hear from as many people in our sector as possible; so, whether you’re paid staff, volunteer, associate, or student, whether you work directly in taxonomy or biosystematics, or in associated roles such as curation or bioinformatics, please put your thinking caps on.

We’re also very keen to hear from students and Early Career Researchers (after all, it’s your future we’re talking about). As encouragement, three prizes are up for offer, to a student or ECR who contributes the:

  • most popular idea

  • most novel idea;

  • most ambitious vision.

CSIRO Publishing is dedicated to publishing excellence in taxonomy and systematics, and has generously offered a prize for the winner of each category above. The prize consists of a $100 book voucher, as well as a subscription to your choice of journal (Australian Systematic Botany or Invertebrate Systematics) and free open access for your next publication to one of the above journals. Prizes will be judged for contributions received before 31 August 2017.

So – please do the vision thing, and let’s start shaping our future.

Why Australia's plant phrase-naming system is more interesting than it seems (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this blog (please read that first if you haven't already) I established (I hope) that the system we operate in Australia for phrase-naming vascular plants is an interesting and noteworthy initiative, and one that could perhaps be extended and explored as one part of a solution to the taxonomic impediment (the name we give to the problem that there are not enough of us and we don't have enough time to name all the organisms we need to name). 

I made a claim that the phrase-naming system has all the requirements to be regarded as a Controlled Namespace, and in fact runs parallel to, and augments, that other great controlled namespace, the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants

The purpose of this blog is to make two arguments, firstly that we should consider extending the phrase-naming system to all biota, and secondly (and probably more controversially) that we should explore using it to name aspects of biodiversity that are worth naming, but may not be "taxa" (whatever they are).

Extending the phrase-naming space to all biota

Botanists in Australia created their formal phrase-naming system for two reasons. Firstly, we inhabit a mega-diverse country with a partially documented biodiversity, and are all aware of "good" taxa that, despite not yet having a formal name, nonetheless are in need of recognition and protection. Secondly, and because of this, at the time we commenced work on the Australian Plant Census (APC) project, it became clear that if we included only formal names, we would mis-estimate our plant biodiversity. An intent of the APC was to harmonise taxonomy across state borders, and harmonising phrase-names is just as important as harmonising formal names. In these senses, the phrase-naming system is a simple solution to a practical problem.

The problem that we faced is not unique to botany. In many other taxonomic groups, we recognise more taxa than have yet been named. Collections with large numbers of un-named species are often partially curated using taxonomic "sorts", either physically in the collection, electronically in databases, or at least in the minds of the curators. If an important task of taxonomy (arguably the most important) is to document all known biodiversity, then these "sorts" represent documentation that's currently pretty undocumented.

A practical problem with documenting these undocumented taxa is that they are currently (except for plants) named using Locally Controlled Namespaces, or worse, Completely Uncontrolled Namespaces. If something in a collection is called "Fly sp. 1", there's not much to go on for anyone trying to understand the taxonomic concept concerned. If another collection also has a "Fly sp. 1", and if there's reason to believe that "Fly sp. 1" ≠ "Fly sp. 1", then we have a problem. This is exactly the problem that GUIDs (taxon or phrase-names) are designed to solve.

Just as with plants, capturing and rationalising these names so that we can assert (likely) equivalency between specimens having the same phrase name would be an enormous step in our task to document Australasia's biodiversity. It would give us an opportunity to capture all our knowledge, rather than just the part that's made it through all the hoops to formal naming.

Of course, this statement will immediately raise an objection in the minds of some readers. How can we be sure that these phrase-named taxa really are taxa, if we haven't yet done the taxonomic due diligence that comes with formal naming. An answer is that we work on a sliding scale, and we can't really assert anywhere along this scale that we're absolutely sure that taxon x is really a taxon. There are many cases where we can be as confident that an un-named taxon is a good taxon, as that a named taxon is a good taxon. While there will always be some uncertainty, I don't think we should let that stand in the way of a more efficient and effective way of documenting our biodiversity. 

So - I propose that, as one of the initiatives under the Decadal Plan, we extend the formal phrase-naming of Australasian taxa to all biota, and that we initiate a campaign to capture all of our current taxonomic knowledge, including knowledge that for various reasons hasn't yet made it through to formal naming. The following steps would be needed:

  1. the adoption of a single agreed convention for phrase-naming informal taxa throughout the biota (I'd like to propose the vascular plant phrase-naming convention as a bloody good start);
  2. the initiation of a campaign to capture within the agreed phrase-naming system all taxonomic knowledge represented in our collections and data systems; and
  3. commencement of a system of rationalisation between collections so that over time we can be confident that the same phrase names apply to the same taxa throughout.

Extending the phrase-naming space beyond taxa

I've described the current vascular phrase-naming system as being akin to a parking lot for taxa that await formal naming. This need not necessarily be the case, however. 

If, as I argued in Part 1 of this blog, a phrase-naming system is effectively a Fourth Namespace that sits alongside and parallel to the three existing nomenclatural Codes, it follows that we could design that namespace to do whatever we want it to do. If there are cases where we'd like to name something (i.e., do taxonomy) but we believe this is best dealt with outside the Codes, then we can design a controlled namespace from scratch and optimise it to deal with these cases.

This is where my idea of an all-biota phrase-naming system may get controversial, and I may get shot down.

Nature is immensely complex. Evolution has generated patterns of variation that are among the most challenging in the universe. Given this, is it likely that a one-size-fits-all approach to naming this pattern (one or other of the Codes depending on one's organismal group) is going to be adequate for the task?

Consider genetics and genomics. These immensely powerful tools allow us to discern patterns at a level of resolution and detail never before dreamed of. Having discerned a pattern, there's a strong desire among those of us with a taxonomic bent to want to name entities that we can discern from the pattern. If only one controlled namespace is available, that's the one we choose to name under. I think there's a danger here - that we'll bugger-up a perfectly good naming system that can't, or shouldn't, need to cope with all this extra detail.

This is one reason why I worry about "cryptic species" (I put the phrase in quotes because too often it's written without, thus rather prejudging the whole issue). Let's say that we have a lineage that's morphologically recognisable. Let's say that it was a species that currently has a name (probably dealt with using classical methods). Let's now say that genetic and genomic studies reveal well-characterised sub-lineages, which are not currently recognised in our taxonomy. Having discovered these cryptic lineages, we're tempted to name them as "cryptic species". 

This is all well and good if the point of naming is merely to document biodiversity by boffins, for boffins. The problem is that there are many more non-boffins than there are boffins, and many of these comprise "the public". I believe we ignore this at our peril. Jenny Citizen used to be able to recognise this species, but is now faced with half-a-dozen "cryptic species" that she can no longer discern. If our naming system gets loaded with taxa that she can't understand and can't see, then we'll lose her to our cause. This, of course, would be dangerous to our cause.

If there were only a small number of these awkwardly cryptic taxa, then the system would probably cope OK. If however, there are many, then loading up our taxonomy with names that are effectively useless for many (though not all) users, is a problem. My fear is that the more we look, the more cryptic variation we'll find.

And this is where the Fourth (or Fifth, or Sixth) Namespace comes in. We could design a namespace that's optimised to allow us to capture names of things (such as morphologically cryptic lineages) that we choose not to name in our Code-based namespace. Because our new namespace is a controlled one, it would still serve perfectly well for communication among the boffins and other rare breeds who need it. Our Code-based namespaces, which perhaps are more public-facing, could then be immune from being over-stuffed with these things. 

This would also have the advantage that we'd solve a current problem even for us boffins. Many researchers who discover lineages (or sub-lineages) using genetic and genomic methods, fail to name them under the Codes because they find it too hard. There's a curiously anachronistic view around that you need to find some morphological difference (any morphological difference) to be comfortable to name something under the Codes. A result is that some people work away trying desperately to squeeze some minor morphological difference out of their poor creatures, then (if they get lucky) name them on that basis. Others either give up, or don't bother. The result? Our worst enemy - an uncontrolled namespace. How many Clade A's can you think of in your group's literature? We could invent a system that works better than this.

So - I propose that we investigate a phrase-naming system that will allow us to name genetic lineages and other entities that should be named, just not under the Codes.The following steps would be needed:

  1. the adoption of an agreed convention for phrase-naming genetic lineages (and perhaps other entities such as significant populations);
  2. the establishment of standards for journal papers that will provide a convenient way for such names to be coined; and
  3. the establishment of a system to track and document these names, and that would allow them to be resolved back to an original source.

We could then inhabit the best of all possible worlds (well, that might be going too far), with several carefully controlled name-spaces each optimised for different uses. The sum of our taxonomic knowledge would be the sum of these namespaces, in whatever combination is most fit for purpose for the particular questions asked. I think this would give us much-needed flexibility, that is currently lacking in our nomenclatural system.

Over to you for comment...

Why Australia's plant phrase-naming system is more interesting than it seems (Part 1)

For the last decade or so, Australian botanists have been doing a very interesting thing (we've actually been doing lots of interesting things, but this blog is about just one of them). We’ve been naming taxa (or at least, putative taxa) outside the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (the Code), using a parallel but carefully formulated and controlled nomenclatural system.

This is the phrase-naming system, standardised by Bill Barker on behalf of the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria (CHAH) in 2005 (see Barker, W.R. Standardising informal names in Australian publications, Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter 122, 11–12, 2005).

A phrase name is a name constructed under the agreed CHAH standard, with the form “Genus-name sp. Phrasename (Voucher specimen identifier) Source”. Some examples are Acacia sp. Ambathala (C.Sandercoe 624) Qld Herbarium, Sauropus sp. Jabiru (C.R.Dunlop 3381) NT Herbarium, and Typhonium sp. Kununurra (A.N.Start ANS 1467) WA Herbarium.

The phrase-naming system was standardised at the time the Australian Plant Census (APC) project was initiated. This is no coincidence – the APC was an initiative to checklist accepted vascular plant taxa across Australia, and a standardised phrase-naming system was required for that effort.

At first glance, our vascular plant phrase-naming system may seem prosaic and uninteresting - what's so special about putting tag names on plants? However, I reckon it's actually much more interesting than it seems. Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, it's globally unique: no other country has an agreed, formal, multi-jurisdictional standard for naming taxa outside the normal provisions of biological nomenclature. But beyond it's uniqueness, I think it establishes a precedent and a model that could provide much-needed flexibility in naming throughout modern taxonomy and systematics.

Names and namespaces

Technically, names are GUIDS (Globally Unique Identifiers). A GUID is a key (a number or text string) that identifies a thing, and that the system designer can assert uniquely identifies that thing and only that thing within the system. If this is the case, a GUID can then stand in for the thing itself. GUIDs are particularly important in globally distributed systems (like the internet, or biology), where the Globally Unique part of GUID means exactly that.

To ensure that GUIDs are globally unique, a control system and a set of rules are needed, which together control the assignment of GUIDS to things, and the resolution from GUIDS to things. If such a control system is present, and it results in global uniqueness, the system is called a Controlled Namespace. A great example of a controlled namespace is the DNS (Domain Name System), which controls how domain names (like are assigned and managed. If the DNS didn’t control domain names as GUIDS, and two separate websites could each have the same domain name, the internet would quickly unravel.

Taxonomists around the world are very familiar with controlled namespaces, because that's what the three Codes of Nomenclature (the botanical, zoological and bacteriological Codes) are. The Codes are complex sets of rules that control how names are assigned (rules of validity), are deemed to be correct or incorrect (rules of legitimacy), and are resolved when several valid and legitimate options exist (rules of priority). The rules ensure that one taxon has one valid and legitimate name (that is, each taxon has a GUID). 

The Codes, while exceedingly important, are not perfect, largely because they evolved at a time when controlling the biological namespace was effectively impossible. Taxonomists wore funny wigs, spoke Latin, printed their taxonomy in books using Gutenberg presses, and distributed them by slow boat or a new-fangled and very cool thing called a postal service. If the internet had been invented at that time, it would be a complete mess. The fact that biological nomenclature isn’t a mess (it’s actually pretty good) is testament to the great workarounds that our nomenclatural forebears put in place at the time the Codes were consolidated in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

As well as being imperfect, the Codes are not magical: they're useful only because of the controlled namespaces they enable. And if good reasons emerge to set up more controlled namespaces, there's nothing to stop us doing just that.

The fourth namespace

This is why I think the Australian phrase-naming system is interesting. It's a fourth controlled namespace. (Remember that it combines a standard rule for forming names, and a process - the APC - that ensures uniqueness, hence the phrase-name system in a formal sense is a controlled namespace.) In fact, while we often call phrase-names "informal", in contradistinction to the "formal" names created under the Codes, in many ways they're just as formal. 

This fourth namespace was created to solve a specific problem in Australian botanical taxonomy, which is that we have a bottleneck: taxa (at least, putative ones) are being recognised in Australia faster than we can deal with them under the normal mechanisms of taxonomy and name them under the Codes. The phrase-naming system was invented as a "parking bay", to enable names to be given to these taxa - with all that that implies for communication, conservation etc. - while they await "formal" naming. It's a neat partial solution to the taxonomic impediment, which of course is what causes the bottleneck in the first place. 

The thing I find interesting about this is that there are many dimensions to the taxonomic impediment, and formal phrase-names established under a controlled namespace, like the Australian vascular plant phrase-naming system, could play a larger role in dealing with these. In a later blog I'll try to draw out some of these possibilities, and to show that this fourth namespace could play a larger and more interesting role in our overall taxonomy than it does at present. It could, for example, be extended to the whole of Australasian biology, allowing the formal (informal) naming of organisms other than plants. In doing so, it could play an important role in rapidly capturing, with unique names, all our taxon concepts, even those that are not yet ready (for a variety of reasons) for naming under the Codes (or indeed, and here's a thought, ones that we have no intention of naming under the Codes).

Coming up next - extending phrase-names to the whole of life, and to more than just "taxa"...

The Decadal Plan is mission go

An email on Monday from Prof. Andrew Holmes, President of the Australian Academy of Science, and an Academy news release, formally announced the commencement of an intensive project to develop a Decadal Plan for Biosystematics and Taxonomy in Australasia. The support provided for this initiative from the Academy of Science, the Ian Potter Foundation, and the project’s partners, is very welcome, and we’re very excited that work is commencing in earnest..

The plan is to release an Exposure Draft of the Decadal Plan in late November, at the joint meeting of the Australasian Systematic Botany Society and the Society of Australian Systematic Biologists in Adelaide, with the final Plan to be released in early 2018. In the lead-up to release of the exposure draft, there will be much work for the project’s Working Group and Steering Committee. We hope that many practicing biosystematists and taxonomists, and stakeholders, will be able to contribute and to engage in development of the Plan. It’s success is obviously contingent on meaningful engagement with as wide a range of contributors as possible. This project gives us all the opportunity to contribute to strategic development of the twin disciplines of biosystematics and taxonomy in our region, and to shape their future, impacts and achievements.

During development of the Plan, discussion papers and pre-release drafts of sections for comment and discussion will be released in noto|biotica, and through our sector’s social media. We welcome any comments, views, feedback and contributions, either directly through this site or by email to me or to other members of the Working Group (I’ll shortly update a contact list for Working Group members here). We plan also to arrange a series of sector and stakeholder meetings in capital cities throughout Australia and in New Zealand. Please also share news of our plans with your colleagues and through your own social media channels, and encourage others to get involved.

The overall goal of the Plan is to map out where we want biosystematics and taxonomy in Australasia to be in 2028, what achievements we would like to see realised, and what’s needed to get there. We encourage you all, whether practicing biosystematists or taxonomists, or stakeholders, to put your thinking caps on, decide what you think the priorities should be, discuss with colleagues, and share your thoughts with us.

 We look forward to working with you all.

The Botany Bill

The American Society of Plant Taxonomists (ASPT) has been instrumental in negotiations towards a Botany Bill (formally, The Botanical Sciences and Native Plant Materials Research, Restoration and Promotion Act) recently introduced to the US House of Representatives by a Democrat-Republican co-sponsor pair. The aim of the Bill is to "support the botanical science capacity of the federal government". A press release on the Bill is here.

An interesting idea (and of course, an interesting time to introduce such a Bill in the US. To my knowledge, Trump has yet to tweet his opinion on the Bill.)

What are the big questions in plant systematics? - a report of a symposium on the future of global plant systematics

An interesting article in the last issue of American Journal of Botany. See especially the section discussing the big questions in plant systematics, and how we can address them. Thanks to David Cantrill for bringing this paper to our attention.

From the introduction to the paper:

"Forty botanists from 13 countries met this March in Amsterdam at a special colloquium at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences to discuss the future of plant systematics (“Beyond the Tree of Life: the Future of Plant Systematics”; Fig. 1). The meeting was funded by the Netherlands Royal Academy and organized by Erik Smets (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands) and colleagues*; it addressed several paradoxes in our field. First, with an ongoing planetary-scale biodiversity crisis, the need for plant systematists has never been greater, and yet taxonomic expertise appears to be in steady decline, as noted by repeated calls for action (e.g., de Carvalho et al., 2007Drew, 2011). Despite this, new plant species are continuously being discovered, and plant systematics as a field has survived and even thrived, thanks to the common overarching goal of building and understanding the Tree of Life, spurred by the availability of new technology and powerful analytical frameworks. Yet, members of the public and colleagues outside biology often express surprise when new plant species are discovered or appear unaware that the Tree of Life is far from being fully resolved. In this context, how do we justify the importance of continued research on plant biodiversity and explain its importance to the general public, university administrators, funding agencies, and policy makers?"

Among other things, the colloquium asked the question "What are the cool, achievable questions in plants sytsematics, and how can we answer them?". Here's their answer:

"The third discussion session aimed at formulating questions and solutions that plant systematists as a community may realistically target in the near future. Four tentative key questions emerged: (1) How is plant life related, and how is diversity distributed in time and space? (2) What are the processes generating biodiversity? (3) How many species are there, and what do we know about them? (4) How do we break the barriers for training and employing systematists in the developing world? To address these questions, we thought that a flagship international project aimed at collecting/synthesizing in public databases, the phenotype, interactome, and genome from 100 specimens each of 1000 species over their distribution range and ecological gradients could attract excitement and major sources of funding and provide significant, novel answers and new questions."

This paper is useful and interesting food for thought for our own Decadal Plan process. The fill paper is at 

The eFlora of Australia

The Flora of Australia is a standard reference work for Australian vascular plants, providing standard Flora treatments (descriptions, nomenclature, keys, distributions) etc for all covered families, genera and species. The first taxonomic volume of the series was published in 1982 (Volume 8, Lecythidales to Batales). Since then, 25 vascular plant volumes (of a planned 50 volumes) have been published, covering c. 12,000 taxa (including two volumes dealing with Australia’s island territories).

In 2014, a decision was made to discontinue hardcopy publication of the Flora of Australia, and to move instead to a web-based platform. This has obvious advantages: the hardcopy volumes are mostly out-of-print and many are out-of-date, and transitioning to a web platform will allow quicker publication, easier management and updates, and a wider reach to a more diverse audience.

The Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) is creating a new web-based platform for building, managing and maintaining eFloras, including the new eFlora of Australia. Work has commenced to move existing taxonomic treatments from the Flora of Australia to the new platform, including both published and unpublished treatments. Under the editorial management of the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) and supported by an Editorial Committee including representatives from the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria (CHAH) and the Australian Systematic Botany Society, the new eFlora platform will allow the eFlora of Australia to be managed and edited using a new, decentralised, community-wide model.

The eFlora of Australia and ALA eFlora platform are not yet ready for public release, but work is progressing well and a release in 2017 is anticipated. Watch this space for more...

Kevin Thiele

I'm a systematist and taxonomist, a past Director of the Western Australian Herbarium, past Chair of the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria, and currently an independent scientist trading under the name Eubio Consulting. After a PhD at Melbourne University, where I worked on an early cladistic analysis of Banksia, I took up a post-doctoral position under Judy West at the Australian National Herbarium, working on a Flora of Australia treatment of Rhamnaceae. My wife and I then eschewed gainful employ and took our small but growing family to a small, off-grid farmlet in a remote and utterly beautiful part of East Gippsland, where we lived and worked for 12 years growing vegetables, raising children, helping out at the local school, and continuing our research work into, amongst other things, the conservation of grassy box woodlands, the taxonomy of Viola, and development of the Lucid suite of software tools. Another major change of lifestyle, occasioned by the children reaching high school age, saw us move to Perth and, for me, the position leading the WA Herbarium for a decade. My current work includes teaching systematics and evolution at the University of Western Australia, the taxonomy of Hibbertia in Western Australia, building an identification key to all Australian flowering plants, and working towards the Decadal Plan for Biosystematics and Taxonomy in Australasia.

The Decadal Plan for Biosystematics and Taxonomy in Australasia

Biosystematics and taxonomy – the disciplines that name, classify and determine the evolutionary relationships of all living organisms – are foundational sciences. Many other disciplines and activities in biology, including ecology, conservation, genetics, biosecurity, and medicine to name just a few, depend on the framework knowledge, nomenclature, and understanding of organisms provided by biosystematics and taxonomy.

Despite this, funding and infrastructure investment in biosystematics and taxonomy are declining. Biosystematics and taxonomy often “fly under the radar” of high-impact science, and their foundational role is often unacknowledged.

The current low base of funding for biosystematics and taxonomy in Australasia means that, in effect, we are drawing on previous investment in this sector (the past two centuries of endeavour and effort to understand and document the flora and fauna of Australasia) but no longer adequately investing in the future (building capacity and knowledge of the many currently known or undiscovered species that have not yet been named, and keeping our knowledge scientifically updated and current). This lack of investment is of particular concern in Australasia, one of very few areas of mega-biodiversity in the world.

Inadequate investment in this sector leads to negative consequences, and often substantial economic costs, for conservation, biosecurity, and sustainable development and growth. Important species will become extinct before they are recognised and their conservation needs and potential ecological and economic roles understood. Emerging biosecurity threats will be recognised too late, compromising early responses and leading to inadequate control measures and increased mitigation costs. These impacts in turn will compromise sustainable development and reduce our ability to minimise the effects of the current global wave of extinctions.

This project seeks to turn this situation around. Led by a core group of leading taxonomists and biosystematists, it centres on developing a Decadal Plan for the scientific discipline of biosystematics and taxonomy in Australasia that will:

  • document current opportunities and risks in the sector;
  • provide a forward-looking vision and roadmap for the discipline, including its impacts on and benefits for biodiversity, society and the economy;
  • provide a detailed investment plan for the next decade; and
  • initiate steps toward implementing the plan through engagement with the sector and its stakeholders.

Decadal Plans have been developed for a number of sectors in Australian science by the Australian Academy of Science - a listing of these can be obtained here

The Decadal Plan for Biosystematics and Taxonomy in Australasia will be a starting point for effecting a real change in the status, visibility and funding of biosystematics and taxonomy in Australasia.

Read the brochure below for more detail