Taxonomy automated

Has automated taxonomy become outmoded The results presented in the present volume gainsay this question. The subject of automated identification in systematics is presented in several respects. The old numerical taxonomy is not moribund, just modified. The collection of papers does not, however, represent a homogeneous approach to automated systematics. hi fact one author exphcitly states that his results are not intended to be construed as a contribution to automatized systematics in a taxonomical sense. An aspect that could well be united with this work concerns the problem of the expression of shapes in morphometries, which, of course, in itself is not a candidate for automatically performed identification of taxa. Several of the contributions lie within the sphere of computer-based technology and will not be as readily accessible to the average taxonomist. The results presented on digital automated identification systems impress in that they scan to have been, in a few cases, well tried and tested on real, largely entomological problems. Work on the automated taxonomy of bee species has produced problems of interest to the taxonomic specialist. 

Once it is determined that data exist, the next step is to begin the collection process. If sufficient thought and training is provided in the development and operation of the maintenance and operating reporting systems, much of the collection process can be automated. Automation assumes that a well-thought-out taxonomy is in place. If this is not the case, then an analyst must collect and review the records manually. In either case, the analyst must collect data from the plant sources previously discussed in order to determine the numerator (number of failures within a unique plant equipment population), and denominator (the operating time or number of demands for the equipment) of the equation to calculate failure rates. 

---