Sure [0], [1], [2], [3] can give you a hint at the keywords to search for. "Taxonomic impediment" is often used, it will let you dig deeper (though I don't like the term for various reasons). The topic has been raised for decades. I was part of the NSF program PEET [4], my peers and I got the best training in the world. Some of us are fortunate enough to good or great jobs in taxonomy. I can think of none that are strictly alpha-taxonomists (their primary research output being species descriptions). For example, if you did a PhD that was an epic 500 page monograph of the description of 100+ new species and covered 400 species total referencing science and specimens dating back up to 250 years, you wouldn't be a prof now. If you did a diverse, but necessarily less comprehensive PhD on a bunch of topics, maybe a couple new species, maybe a little molecular phylogeny, perhaps a database, a little of this, a little of that, and some of it was very buzzy- you'd have a fighting chance. This isn't really surprising, and I'm not making a real value-judgement on either approach. BTW- the problem is not that we've run out of species to descr
[0](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/61/12/942/390232) [1](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/latest-endangered-speci...) [2](https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...) [3](https://academic.oup.com/jcb/article-pdf/35/6/729/10346383/j...) [4](https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5451)