Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of transbThe Royal Society PublishingPhilosophical Transactions BAboutBrowse By SubjectAlertsFree Trial
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 April 29; 359(1444): 655–667.
PMCID: PMC1693351

Automated species identification: why not?


Where possible, automation has been a common response of humankind to many activities that have to be repeated numerous times. The routine identification of specimens of previously described species has many of the characteristics of other activities that have been automated, and poses a major constraint on studies in many areas of both pure and applied biology. In this paper, we consider some of the reasons why automated species identification has not become widely employed, and whether it is a realistic option, addressing the notions that it is too difficult, too threatening, too different or too costly. Although recognizing that there are some very real technical obstacles yet to be overcome, we argue that progress in the development of automated species identification is extremely encouraging that such an approach has the potential to make a valuable contribution to reducing the burden of routine identifications. Vision and enterprise are perhaps more limiting at present than practical constraints on what might possibly be achieved.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (349K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Blaxter Mark L. The promise of a DNA taxonomy. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 Apr 29;359(1444):669–679. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Boddy L, Morris CW, Wilkins MF, Tarran GA, Burkill PH. Neural network analysis of flow cytometric data for 40 marine phytoplankton species. Cytometry. 1994 Apr 1;15(4):283–293. [PubMed]
  • Boddy L, Wilkins MF, Morris CW. Pattern recognition in flow cytometry. Cytometry. 2001 Jul 1;44(3):195–209. [PubMed]
  • Allen CM, Kapoor N. Verruciform xanthoma in a bone marrow transplant recipient. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1993 May;75(5):591–594. [PubMed]
  • Godfray H Charles J. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature. 2002 May 2;417(6884):17–19. [PubMed]
  • Hebert Paul D N, Cywinska Alina, Ball Shelley L, deWaard Jeremy R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Feb 7;270(1512):313–321. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Jarman KH, Cebula ST, Saenz AJ, Petersen CE, Valentine NB, Kingsley MT, Wahl KL. An algorithm for automated bacterial identification using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry. Anal Chem. 2000 Mar 15;72(6):1217–1223. [PubMed]
  • May RM. How many species are there on Earth? Science. 1988 Sep 16;241(4872):1441–1449. [PubMed]
  • Parsons S, Jones G. Acoustic identification of twelve species of echolocating bat by discriminant function analysis and artificial neural networks. J Exp Biol. 2000 Sep;203(Pt 17):2641–2656. [PubMed]
  • Patterson David J. Progressing towards a biological names register. Nature. 2003 Apr 17;422(6933):661–661. [PubMed]
  • Tautz Diethard, Arctander Peter, Minelli Alessandro, Thomas Richard H, Vogler Alfried P. DNA points the way ahead in taxonomy. Nature. 2002 Aug 1;418(6897):479–479. [PubMed]
  • Wilkins MF, Boddy L, Morris CW, Jonker RR. Identification of phytoplankton from flow cytometry data by using radial basis function neural networks. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Oct;65(10):4404–4410. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society