Web-Based Digital Insect Identification:
Our Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities
R. Wills Flowers, Muhammad Haseeb,
Moses T.K. Kairo, and Terrence Walters
C
lassification is the most basic of all the biological sciences;
indeed, most scientific questions biologists ask could never
be formulated or even conceived without reference to some
sort of hierarchical arrangement of taxa (Rieppel1992,
2004). Yet
the future of taxonomy-or
whether taxonomy has a future-has
become a recurring topic in both specialized and popular scientific literature. Increasingly, part of the discussion turns on what, if
anything, the taxonomist owes society at large (and what society
owes in return).
Taxonomy has not always been the indispensable
biology. Although Linnaeus formalized hierarchical
foundation of
classification,
taxonomy was largely the pastime of those who could afford to
maintain extensive cabinets (collections). Before 1805, trying to
identify a plant or animal without direct comparison to original
described material was a very difficult task. However, in 1805,
Jean Baptiste Lamarck and Auguste de Candolle invented a tool
that unlocked knowledge of biodiversity by drastically simplifying
the process of identification: the dichotomous key (Fig. 1). Before
Lamarck, an identifier had to read through narrative descriptions
that might or might not be comprehensible
without the specimen
itself to study. After Lamarck, a well-constructed
illustrated key
would be sufficient to identify any organism (with the possible
exception of prokaryotes).
It has been argued that taxonomy should not be a "handmaiden"
to other branches of biology (Wheeler 2008). On the other hand,
most biologists might feel that identifying the components
of
biodiversity should be a rather basic part oftaxonomy's
mission.
In recent discussions over the future of taxonomy, taxonomists
identify ecologists, conservationists,
and phylogenetic theorists
as users or clientele. Missing from the lists are the most important
(and potentially influential) users of taxonomy: agricultural scientists. A recent article with an exceptionally broad -minded approach
for revitalizing
taxonomy's
role in society nevertheless
failed
to mention any need for taxonomy in the agricultural
sciences
(Pearson et al. 2011). Yet in the international
arena, taxonomists
willing to work in agriculture are the scientists for which there is
probably the highest demand, and even in the United States, the
U.S. Department
basic taxonomy,
of Agriculture (USDA) has been actively funding
albeit in an area many taxonomists
may have
overlooked.
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ) has embraced new taxonomic technology and in the past few years has produced an impressive array of
identification tools, many of which are becoming very popular. This
symposium includes presentations from the developers and the users
of expert systems. The list of authors includes taxonomists whose
work underpins expert system development, developers themselves,
and users ranging from government identification technicians to
university professors. It is our anticipation that the papers presented
here will capture the current status of this technology and set the
scene for future development.
Public perception may be that taxonomy is in an eclipse, ifnot a
death spiral. However; fusion of new technologies and the need for
Fig. 1. Jean Baptiste lamarck and Auguste de Candolle invented a tool
that unlocked knowledge of biodiversity by drastically simplifying the
process of identification: the dichotomous key.
222
taxonomy and appreciation of taxonomists in developing countries
might offer a way to survive and even prosper. Like many of the
insects we study. when we are pushed into small refugia, we need
to survive, adapt, and, when the climate changes, erupt forth and
reclaim our former academic and social territory.
American Entomologist. Winter 2011
References Cited
Pearson, D.L., A.L. Hamilton, and T. L. Erwin. 2011. Recovery plan for the
endangered taxonomy profession. Bioscience 61: 58-63.
Homology and logical fallacy. J. evolutionary biology 5:
701-715.
Rieppel, O. 2004. The language of systematics, and the philosophy of "total
evidence." Systematics and Biodiversity 2: 9-19.
Wheeler, Q.D. 2008. The new taxonomy. The Systematics Association.
Special Volume Series 76. CRCPress. Boca Raton, FL.
Rieppel, 0.1992.
Wills Flowers is a Professor Emeritus in the Florida A&M University
(FAMU).His research and training interests are taxonomy and identification
of chrysomelid species in the United States and Central and South America.
Muhammad Haseeb is a Research Entomologist in the Center for Biological Control (CBC),FAMU.He is engaged in development, deployment, and
training on the digital insect identification tools. Moses Kairo is a Professor of Entomology and Director of the CBC,FAMU.His research interests
include invasive species management and biological control. Terrence
Walters is the National Coordinator of Identification Technology Program
of the USDA,APHIS,PPQ, CPHST.He administers the digital identification
program nationwide and provides the training and technical support to
developers and end-users.
_________________
IN_S_T_1\.NT SYMPO_S_I_U_M
_
/f
New Approaches and Possibilities for Invasive Pest
Identification Using Web-based Tools
Muhammad Haseeb, Moses 1.K. Kairo,
and R. Wills Flowers
he advent of global trade has opened up vast opportunities for
sentient beings to go in search of a better life. Unfortunately,
some of the ones making the most of these opportunities have
been pest and disease organisms. Such invasive pests are a leading
threat to our nation's economy. security, rich biodiversity. and human
health. Since colonial times, thousands of non-native species have
been introduced into the United States intentionally or unintention-
drastically increased the need for taxonomic expertise both here
and abroad. Insect identifiers confront on a daily basis the chal-
ally (Todd 2001). Within the United States, the estimated damage
and management cost of invasive pest species is more than $138
billion annually (Pimentel et al. 2005). In addition to these costs,
many economic losses from recreational and tourism revenues are
difficultto calculate (Simberloff2001);
as a result, the $138 billion
(computer assisted), tabular keys (taxa vs. character states), and
punch card keys. In recent years, computer-based
taxonomic pro-
T
lenge of identifying new, existing, and potentially invasive pest
species. Accurate identification of insects is required before action
can be determined. In the past, end-users have used various approaches to identity insects, including matching (type specimens),
dichotomous keys, pathway keys, matrices and multiple entry keys
grams (Walter and Winterton 2007) comprising taxonomic keys,
tools, and resources have become increasingly popular. In contrast,
damage estimate may be a low projection.
alpha taxonomy has been increasingly displaced to the bottom of
the systematic branches (Hoagland 2000). The ability to identify
species, especially invasive ones, is a prerequisite for most of the
The Need for Identification
The almost continuous appearance of new pests and diseases
in agricultural areas has increased the demand for taxonomists as
biological sciences. Indeed, it has a bigger role in pest management
and quarantine (Marshall 2003), and in certain cases, it is required
by the federal and state legislature covering the USDA-APHIS's
never before. USDA policies of offshore mitigation and aggressive
quarantine regulations to prevent the entry of exotic pests have
Cooperative Agricultural
mitigation initiatives.
American Entomologist.
Volume 57, Number 4
Pest Survey Program as well as offshore
223