When looking at Caribbean biology from a historical perspective, I came up with a way to oversimplify things based on how research was/is conducted. (I’m sure there are plenty of other great ways to oversimplify this.) Although it’s an imperfect framework for viewing things, I think it does help explain why we are so ignorant in certain areas and how we can improve our understanding of Caribbean biology in the future.
Version 1.0 was the dominant mode from the beginning of the colonial era through the beginning of the 20th century. It was basically, kill ’em all and let the museum guy sort ’em out. People (occasionally scientists, but often not) would collect specimens for study by experts at the museums and universities of Europe (and later, North America). Many new species were named. Our understanding of them was largely limited to their physical characteristics and the locations where they lived. By the mid-20th century at least some scientists were remarking on the flaws of this system, like the experts never having seen any of the animals alive or in their natural habitat.
Version 2.0 was enabled by the increasing ease of travel and involved actual scientists visiting the Caribbean. They could now come down and collect their own specimens for study back at their institutions. They could also record behavior and conduct studies in the field. However, for much of the Caribbean, these scientific visits were, and are, relatively short. We’re still largely in this phase. Collecting specimens is more effective, and scientists are studying at least some groups of plants and animals in more detail.
At the same time, we have very little life history data for most species. The interval between observations of a species may be decades, leaving us with outdated information as these islands and their development change rapidly. Much of contemporary scientific research is basically more effective identification of new species using new techniques. Most of the rest deals with interesting, but narrow, studies of things like the population density of a particular species in a particular habitat. The value of many of these studies is marginalized by limited field time.
When it comes to getting a fuller picture of the lives of a broader range of species, we come up very short. An understanding of complex, changing ecosystems is impossible to acquire through short, piecemeal field studies. What we know is highly limited by how we go about learning it.
Version 3.0 will address many of these issues. A deep understanding of Caribbean biology will come when the scientists studying these islands are residents with the time and resources to conduct long-term research in a broad number of areas. When will that be the norm? It’s hard to say, but we’re probably still decades away. How do we get there? One component has to be local wildlife education in primary school to develop the interest that will drive local youth to pursue careers in biology and return home to study. Why is it important? Because it’s the only way to really learn how the nature of our islands works, which we need to understand in order to help our ecosystems survive.
A couple notes: There are certainly version 3.0 scientists living and working in the Caribbean, but it is still far from the norm and they are probably concentrated in the larger islands. Also, these scientists don’t have to come exclusively from the local population, but I think there are obvious benefits to inspiring local youth to pursue higher education and careers in science.