Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Kevin J. Gaston
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Mark A. O’Neill
St Thomas' Hospital
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
University of Oxford
University of Sheffield
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Gaston et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a218606e0373b1e768b7d81 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1442