<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Certain aspects of the discussion are a
little beyond me, but other are not, so allow me to chime in:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/13/21 9:21 AM, Samuel Bolton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAA+BUfRk0h3fQg2+OWBRrainzP5DbyJP7We_0eW8pf7c_S02mg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">And by putting more 3D models of holotypes online
from developed countries, the specialists in megadiverse
countries will be able to compare their undescribed species with
those holotypes. NFTs therefore could solve a major impediment
in taxonomy for megadiverse countries, which is a lack of access
to the vast majority of holotypes, many of which have been
effectively poached from megadiverse countries by the most
developed countries. I get more requests from Brazil to see my
specimens than the whole of the developed world. It would be
nice if I could provide them with a high-quality 3D model
because loaning holotypes is a risky business.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Since I manage a collection of over 4 million arthropods, and am
also an ICZN Commissioner, the process of describing new arthropod
species is among my interests.</p>
<p>There are at least two very serious issues that mitigate against
the use of images as substitutes for physical specimens: (1) an
increasing proportion of newly discovered and described taxa are
morphologically cryptic, distinguishable from related taxa only by
their DNA. Images of such species, no matter how good, will not
help taxonomists; people describing new taxa in that group won't
benefit from access to images, nor - in plain fact - will they
benefit from traditional loans of types. Much of taxonomy is
moving away from species delimitation based on externally visible
characters, so the underlying premise is itself diminishing in
relevance. Only groups that CAN'T use DNA (e.g. palaeontologists)
are immune to this. (2) producing 3D images is not cheap or
simple, nor is it guaranteed to produce images <b>useful</b> to
an expert, EVEN IF external morphology is a viable diagnostic
feature. For example, almost any group of organisms that is
traditionally stored in liquid or on microscope slides is pretty
certainly going to be unsuitable for application of 3D imaging, if
only because most of the legacy specimens that one will need to
use for synoptic comparison are going to be difficult or
impossible to work with in this fashion (sometimes often grossly
distorted in shape as well). Imagine that you want to compare
several hundred unidentified specimens on slides to a holotype
that is ALSO on a slide. Even if you are somehow able to generate
3D images of that type, it is actually not going to be truly
helpful for what you need to do, because it's not genuinely <b>comparable</b>
to the material you need to ID.</p>
<p>A minor cautionary tale: starting about 20 or so years ago, we
and a number of other collections that had begun to get swamped by
bulk samples in ethanol, generated by things like malaise traps
and berlese funnels, etc., found that various critical point
drying techniques could give us VERY nice specimens that we could
keep dry, on points, of taxa normally stored in ethanol or on
slides. It seemed like something that could revolutionize taxonomy
for those groups. When I showed point-mounted thrips, perfectly
preserved, to one of the world's leading thrips experts, he sighed
and informed me that the specimens were useless to him or anyone
else, and could not be identified, until and unless they were
cleared and put on slides. Our local spider expert did almost the
exact same thing when confronted with point-mounted theridiids and
salticids, saying that the species-level diagnostic features <b>couldn't
be seen at all</b> in dry specimens. There were similar
reactions to dried collembolans, aphids, etc. - basically,
specimens that were <b>not directly comparable</b> to the
existing reference material were nearly worthless.</p>
<p>I won't deny that I have often longed for nice 3D images of
insects, but I've come to recognize that such images will probably
NEVER be a major tool for the practice of taxonomy, no matter how
good they are, or how cheaply they can be produced. For people
managing a display-oriented natural history collection, however,
they could be a FANTASTIC educational and aesthetic leap; so much
biodiversity is too small to appreciate with the naked eye, but if
you could make a working hologram of, say, a peacock mite, so it
looks like it's 2 feet long, you can blow people away.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAA+BUfRk0h3fQg2+OWBRrainzP5DbyJP7We_0eW8pf7c_S02mg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet
ms",sans-serif">I'm still unsettled by moves to monetize
specimens, even 3D models of them, but I appreciate you taking
the time to address my concerns so thoroughly. It could be
because I come from a vertebrate paleontology background,
where the monetization of beautiful or rare fossils has
resulted in potentially scientifically important specimens
disappearing into private collections and has muddied the
ethics of collecting. Maybe other lessons could come from that
field as museums do sell casts of their specimens, and I'm not
sure how that complicates things when private collectors
donate specimens. Regardless, I do hope that lawyers and
ethicists - perhaps even economists? - are consulted if the
natural history collections community wants to explore this
funding option.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet
ms",sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet
ms",sans-serif">In response to your last paragraph, I
would point out that all of the benefits of VEROs that you
list are actually just benefits of 3D digitization of
specimens, so those benefits could and do occur when funding
is available without any of the complications that trading in
NFTs may introduce. If VEROs do take off, I think that if
local scientists from low GDP countries do not have the
appropriate expertise to describe holotype species, which is a
premise that I don't necessarily accept, then any profit from
VEROs should go towards funding their training and the support
of their collections, not towards digitizing more specimens so
that scientists from wealthier countries can continue to build
their careers on the biodiversity and work of collectors in
low GDP countries.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I've given talks at international conferences about monetization
of taxonomy, in the context of the selling or auctioning of
"species naming rights". Most of the very significant caveats that
apply in that context are universal, however, and <b>very</b>
worrisome. Basically, if ANY part of the taxonomic enterprise is
perceived as a source of significant revenue, then there will be
pressure to <b>preferentially</b> exploit it, and this may happen
even if the long-term consequences destroy the entire enterprise
("killing the golden goose"). Right now, with few exceptions, one
institution can just put a box of specimens in the mail to another
institution, nearly anywhere in the world, for little more than
the cost of postage, and no one bats an eye, including our
administrators, even if it involves thousands of specimens or
potentially new species. We collectively function as a community,
for the most part, to everyone's mutual benefit. ANY pressure to
monetize this work threatens that collaborative status quo,
because it <b>will</b> foster increased competition. Yes, there
is already some of this going on, and the system isn't perfect,
but it's more than just a slippery slope; we're approaching the
edge of a deep, dark pit, and we really need to be alert to the
peril. Even things promoted with the best intentions, like the
Nagoya Protocol, can have devastating consequences if taken to an
extreme.</p>
<p>Sincerely,<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html">https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a>
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82</pre>
</body>
</html>