近几年，我参加了多次中国昆虫学会分类与区系专题会议，并参与了生物多样性相关的一些会议。和国内外同行交流越多，就越切身体会到生物分类学的重要性和面临的问题。有几次会议上，谈及蜜蜂总科的经典分类，我提到国内学者太少，已经濒危。而该学科的发源地欧洲的情况和发展中的中国相比，尽管基础雄厚，但分类学人才队伍也处于濒危的境地。部分学者明确撰文认为：从事分类学工作的科技工作者，已经成为濒危物种之一，需要加以保护。

      对于世界和中国分类学工作者而言，这是巨大的挑战。相较于欧美，中国物种大部分物种有待发现，标本馆体系还不够健全，分类学人才队伍似乎体量有所增加，但大部分类群的研究队伍资金投入不够，岗位设置和评价体系不够合理。分类学人才队伍从低谷刚刚培育，不到学科的半山腰，还远远没有达到和国家发展和国家需求相匹配的水平。如何应对？

      在2016年年底举办的首届生物系统学论坛上，陈宜瑜先生和洪德元先生和参会代表再次回顾了中国生物分类学人才队伍的培育历史。中科院于 1989 年设立生物分类区系学科特别支持费，每年划拨专款用于支持 “三志”(指《中国植物志》、《中国动物志》和《中国孢子植物志》) 的编研和相关的分类学研究工作， 推动了中科院生物分类学的发展。 “九五”期间，针对部分特殊学科因市场经济冲击所遇到的经费短缺，人员老化，后继无人等问题，国家基础科学人才培养基金以项目的形式支持了经原国家科委认定的冰川冻土研究、动物分类学、古生物学、古脊椎动物与古人类学、考古学等6个特殊学科点的人才培养。2002年，在陈宜瑜先生、洪德元先生等前辈的推动和努力下，国家自然科学基金委设立了经典分类学基金。这些项目的设置，为保留和稳定生物分类区系学研究队伍起到了重要作用。

      2009年陈宜瑜院士接受Science访问，特别提到在分类学工作中引入分子的重要性。分类学的每一步发展，都和其它学科的发展、学科交叉密切相关。光学显微镜、电子显微镜、细胞生物学、生物化学、计算机科学、分子生物学、基因组学都推动了经典分类学的进步，甚至产生了新的学科。在基因组学科高速发展的今天，引入组学数据也必然成为整合分类学的一个选项，但不是唯一选项。分子和组学作为手段是有很多优势的。但从目前国内分类学状况看，经典分类研究了解的认知度不够；不少人难以理解比较形态学和经典分类学的精妙和魅力。但是有段时期，生物分类学是不是科学也被认为是一个问题。这应该值得科学团体静心思考一下为什么。最近国家重大科研仪器设备研制专项“多维多尺度高分辨率计算摄像仪器”的工作，就催生了一些很有意思的分类学成果。运用多种新技术新方法是趋势，但国内还没有达到所有的分类工作者都能理解并参与实践的阶段。生物分类学在发展历史中兼收并蓄，不断出现潜在的“学科危机”，但是物种概念为基础的学科框架不仅没有发生变化，反而不断勃发生机。

      前辈的引领培育、国家的支持和资助、学科的交叉，对稳定生物分类学人才队伍非常关键。但是，我们无法忽略以期刊影响因子和论文被引用次数为核心的评价和职称评定体系对这支队伍的影响。2009年，孙航研究员和其他分类学家很早就深刻认识到这一关键性因素对分类学队伍形成巨大冲击的必然性。他们在接受采访的时候，就对中国科研领域的评价体系感到不满。但恰恰是这个评价体系决定了科学家职称评审和经费分配，主要以发表的论文有多少篇论文被纳入科学引文索引和论文被引用的次数来衡量科学家。陈宜瑜先生也主张并支持采用另一套不同的标准来评价分类学家。国家动物博物馆曾经探索根据分类学家鉴别和处理样本的专业水平进行评价；中科院植物研究所成立了经典分类研究小组，根据成员发表的文章和专著的质量来进行评价，而非影响因子。但是，近年来的实际情况验证了孙航研究员当时的观点：特别的评价体系可以使这个领域保留下来，但无法令其可持续发展。现存的评价体系不能帮助分类学家获得国家级的资助或者在竞争中被优先考虑。面对严峻的考评和职称评定系统，部分坚持20年以上分类学工作的研究团队，必须加强向其它学科拓展，减少分类学的教育、培训和投入；部分热爱分类学工作，已经接受了10-20年分类学培训的青年工作者，已经开始从重要的分类学研究单位调离，甚至从科研岗位转向其它行业。目前国内还有一批接受过形态分类学培训的专家和研究生，坚持并活跃在物种鉴定工作的第一线。但是，我们不得不担忧将来的5-10年内是否有足够的年轻人来从事这项不可替代的工作。

      吕植教授提到的国家生物多样性项目已经在逐步推进。物种普查和监测已经成为国家的一项长期任务。在推动全国范围内的生物多样性物种调查与监测的工作中，参与前期设计、方案评估的官员和专家普遍共识就是中国的分类学专家队伍非常缺乏。某些类群的分类学者，已经绝灭；某些类群，如传粉蜜蜂的分类学工作者，处于濒危境地；某些类群，如农林业重要的天敌资源，处于偏少的状况。新技术，特别是DNA条形码技术的发展，大大加速了生物物种发现的速率，推动了分类学、生态学和生物多样性研究的进程。但是，中国还有太多的物种没有被发现，没有被描述，没有被欣赏。经典分类学工作者确定的模式标本、定名标本等，应该是DNA条形码数据库的必要前提之一。显然，很多类群已经没有经典分类学工作者来描述、鉴定物种，很多的工作中只能依靠分子手段发现一批没有名称的分类学单元。    

      国家需求、国家发展、外部环境和其它客观因素非常重要。但是从分类学工作者角度出发，我们还需要把自身作为一个学科的科学家，持续不断加强理论探索、学科交叉，整合多数据来源，推动整合分类学。开展一定的学科普及工作，同时在专业期刊和大众中展示分类学亮点。真正的分类学工作者，可以开展形态学研究、可以对物种定名一锤定音、可以围绕有趣的物种或问题讲讲故事，自然也可以理论与实践并重。我了解的一个英国学者，Godfray教授。他最突出的研究方向是群落生态学。但是，他经常在Nature等杂志上撰文探讨分类学问题。当他和我博士生导师之一，John La Salle博士围绕姬小蜂科系统学问题，并把扁股小蜂科（Elasmidae）降为姬小蜂科亚科，发表论文时，我曾经大为惊讶。后续我才理解：他仍然在味生物分类学鼓与呼。显然，中国生物分类学在过去多年的发展历程和前辈的经验都提示我们坚守分类学初心，端坐冷板凳。学者之间互相欣赏、互相合作和推动，才能有助于这支队伍平稳发展。

      从国家层面，需要根据需求和类群分布情况，设置一些必要的长期岗位、资助方向，让分类学工作者学有所成、学有所用。2010年开始，中国农业部试行《现代农业产业技术体系建设实施方案》，设置了首席科学家、各功能研究室主任、岗位专家和综合试验站代表等不同层级的执行专家，让很多专家可以长期用心从事科研或推广工作。2012年，为进一步推进我国科技基础性工作，科技部组织编制了《国家科技基础性工作专项“十二五”专项规划》，组织了一批批学有所长的分类学家开展数据收集工作。国家自然科学基金委开始实行从2016年开始试点资助“国家自然科学基金基础科学中心项目”（简称基础科学中心项目）。这些成功实施的项目，都为从事基础科学研究的工作者设置了5-10年，甚至更加长期的潜心工作的时间段。生物分类学能否设置体系岗位专家？能否形成基础科学中心？

附：中国环境保护部2016年1月发文“关于做好生物多样性保护优先区域有关工作的通知”，其中特别提到第四、五两点，和生物分类学人才队伍的稳定和发展密切相关：

Taxonomists, An Endangered Species

Taxonomists describe, define and identify life on Earth. This fundamental work is necessary to preserve and protect declining biodiversity. However, taxonomists are becoming an endangered species themselves, as demonstrated by two veterans at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Science.

The eastern gorilla, the addax antelope, the sea urchin, the Panamian golden frog, the black-winged starling or the Hawaiian palm. If no one had ever scientifically described these animals and plants, we would have had such trouble protecting them today now that they are critically endangered. ‘You do have to know what exactly you are protecting,’ explains taxonomist Patrick Grootaert. Together with his colleague, Léon Baert, he has said his goodbyes to the Entomology Department after a richly filled career studying insects at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS).

A whopping 1,9 million animal species have been assigned with such a scientific ‘identi-kit’. But even this is only a small fraction since there are still millions – with estimates from 8,7 million to even 50 million – of animals creeping, flying or swimming around anonymously. ‘I think that we only know about 10 to 20 percent of all fauna,’ says Grootaert, ‘and many go extinct before we can even describe them.’

In Red

The most recent update of the IUCN Red List certainly is very straightforward about the extinction rate: 24.307 species are threatened with extinction out of a total of 85.604 that were investigated. Scientists have been avowedly speaking of  a genuine biodiversity crisis and a sixth mass extinction. The last one even obliterated all non-flying dinosaurs around 65 million years ago.

Loss of habitat, overexploitation, pollution, climate change, introduced species, etc. These not only affect ‘poster animals’ which are known from WWF campaigns. The Red List also includes 394 species of insects that are extinct. According to estimates, many more are disappearing, up to a hundred every day. But which species are being lost and what are the consequences for local ecosystems – think of pollination without the help of bees? ‘We have no idea, and this is alarming’, as entomologist Axel Hochkirch writes in Nature. He advocates for more investments in taxonomy.

No Stamps

Taxonomists are very much down to earth, often with boots or hiking shoes on. Grootaert – who is occasionally called the Lord of the Flies by his co-workers – has been exploring Singaporean mangroves to look for fly species, while Baert has mapped spider populations on the Galápagos Islands. Both have lost count but together they have described over 330 and 150 new species respectively. Grootaert: ‘Finding a new species can give you an indescribable feeling, and this is what drives taxonomists to spend a whole career on. However, taxonomy is about more than collecting stamps. We acquire new insights into biodiversity by, for example, getting samples every week in a certain area using insect traps. This is how we can detect fluctuations in populations in the long term, get to know their habitat, and get to know how various organisms interact around each other. So basically we are not simply sitting in a corner of the room looking at little species with our huge spectacles on! A taxonomist needs to have the courage to put things in the right perspective, and show his work to the world.’    

This line of work can become the fundamental starting point for research in speciation – the forming of a species – and processes of evolution. At the same time it should also lead to more effective conservation efforts. Measures are often improvident, Baert argues. ‘Increasing biodiversity in itself in certain areas cannot be a goal in its own right. You need to protect the special species – species that are typical for a certain area.’ He tells about a natural spring close to the Museum of Natural Sciences where daffodils and typical spider species are living around it. ‘It was removed to make room for a flower meadow. Biodiversity increased but the species there were very trivial. The typical or special species were gone.’

The Last of the Mohicans

The state of professional taxonomists is similar to the state of species, they are thinning out. There are barely twenty taxonomists in the whole of Belgium. Grootaert and Baert were the Last of the Mohicans in the Entomology Department of RBINS. Ten years ago there were still about a dozen left. It is no different when you go abroad. ‘Taxonomists are threatened with extinction’, Baert says. ‘Knowledge and skills are not being transferred to a new generation, and are thus lost.’ For many families of animals there are not even any specialists. This is how extinctions are occurring beyond our knowing. Grootaert agrees with this: ‘Fewer taxonomists are bad news for fauna itself.’  

How come taxonomists and their life’s work are being undermined? Cutbacks, course changes within a scientific institute or being elbowed by ‘hipper’ scientists when research grants are distributed. The image of this old-school branch of science certainly does not always get the spotlight, and taxonomic research rarely makes it into the major scientific journals like Nature or Science. Unfortunately these are the issues that science is about nowadays.  

DNA barcoding – identifying species based on their genetic profile – is a trending topic that gives the impression that it can render classic taxonomy, based on morphological (external) characteristics, unnecessary. ‘Not a chance’, says Grootaert fiercely. ‘Sometimes animals look identical from the outside, but they can differ at a genetic level, or vice versa! It is exactly this combination of genetic and morphological taxonomy that delivers the best science.’

Biology departments at universities or institutes, such as the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), do not have any taxonomists among their midst. That kind of expertise has to come from natural science institutes. ‘This will dissipate’, Grootaert fears. Baert, on the other hand, has seen some improvements in his field of arachnology: ‘The US was starting to dismantle the taxonomy infrastructure: from one day to another everything was about ecology but, in the meantime, they have come to realise that you need taxonomists for this as well.’

Citizen Scientists

Increasingly, there are amateurs or citizen scientists who like to help out in fieldwork or to identify species. Volunteers have always existed. Charles Darwin, for instance, would have never come up with his theory of evolution through natural selection if he had not obtained the necessary evidence from hundreds of amateur naturalists across the globe. Baert always relied on a dozen of amateurs from the ARABEL arachnological society, which he established himself. ‘The society included biology students, but steel workers or miners joined us just as well. The latter were even among the best of them!’ Meanwhile Grootaert opens up a storage cabinet: ‘There you go! Much of my work on flies is based on the collections of two so-called amateurs from Ghent, Maurice Bequaert and Maurice Goetghebuer. Marvelous collection! Citizen scientists are doing an excellent job but it is not a sustainable solution. You still require professionals to coordinate the projects, to obtain new insights. Also, amateurs just do what they like to do – who can blame them, it’s their hobby! – while professional taxonomists don’t avoid the dull, technical work, such as sifting through the species’ genome to look for differences. Citizen scientists are necessary but they can never compensate for the acute shortage of taxonomists.’        

Both distinguished employees of the Institute are officially retiring but do not want abandon their work in any circumstance. Grootaert is leaving to Singapore for half a year to continue his work in the mangroves, while Baert is already working as a volunteer: ‘The work is not finished. 'And once you have been bitten by the taxonomy bug, you remain bitten for the rest of your life. Retirement age doesn’t change anything about that.’

Find out more on RBINS here.