From species descriptions to diversity patterns: the validation of taxonomic data as a keystone for ant diversity studies reproducibility and accuracy

Abstract

Research findings in natural sciences need to be comparable and reproducible to effectively improve our understanding of ecological and behavioural patterns. In this sense, knowledge frontiers in biodiversity studies are directly tied to taxonomic research, especially in species-rich tropical regions. Here we analysed the taxonomic information available in 470 studies on Brazilian ant diversity published in the last 50 years. We aimed to quantify the proportion of studies that provide enough data to validate taxonomic identification, explore the frequency of studies that properly acknowledge their taxonomic background, and investigate the primary resources for ant identification in Brazil. We found that most studies on Brazilian ant diversity (73.6%) explicitly stated the methods used to identify their specimens. However, the proportion of papers that provide complete data for the repository institutions and vouchered specimens is vanishingly small (5.8%). Additionally, only 40.0% of the studies consistently presented taxon authorities and years of description, rarely referencing taxonomic publications correctly. In turn, the number of specialists and institutions consulted for ant identification in Brazil has increased in the last years, along with the number of studies that explicitly provide their taxonomic procedures for ant identification. Our findings highlight a shift between generations regarding the recognition of taxonomy as fundamental science, deepening our understanding of biodiversity.

High rate of species misidentification reduces the taxonomic certainty of European biodiversity databases of ivies (Hedera L.)

“…However, the taxonomic quality standards of biodiversity inventories are heterogeneous and often low when considered together with the geographical quality. For example, even in well-studied regions such as Europe, where large-scale geographical coverage is high 10 , the geographical uncertainty may be high 9 and the taxonomic quality low depending on the study group 2 , 11 and/or the taxonomic sampling unit (species, genera, etc.). Over the last decades, several tools and procedures have been developed to achieve good taxonomic quality in biodiversity inventories 12 .…”

“…However, dealing with changes that involve splitting taxa is often a major challenge that is difficult to resolve unless the newly split taxa live in allopatry and geographical filtering can be done. This is underlined by the fact that the information on the taxonomic criterion that is used is often neglected 11 , 14 , making the harmonization of taxonomic concepts in biodiversity inventories extremely difficult, as it requires in-depth taxonomic knowledge of the group. As a result, the approaches that address this second dimension of the taxonomic quality are scarce.…”

Extensive misidentification of European ivy species (Hedera L.): How taxonomically reliable are online biodiversity databases?

“…However, the taxonomic quality standards of online databases are heterogeneous and often low when considered together with the geographical quality standards. For example, even in well-studied regions such as Europe, where large-scale geographical coverage is high and geographical uncertainty is low 10 , taxonomic quality may be low depending on the study group 3,11 and/or the taxonomic sampling unit (species, genera, etc.). Over the last decades, several tools and procedures have been developed to achieve good taxonomic quality in biodiversity inventories 12 .…”

“…However, dealing with changes that involve splitting biological entities is often a major challenge that is di cult to resolve unless the resulting biological entities live in allopatry and geographical ltering can be done. This is underlined by the fact that the information on the taxonomic criterion used is often neglected 11,14 , making the harmonization of taxonomic concepts in biodiversity inventories extremely di cult. Consequently, the approaches dealing with this second dimension of the taxonomic quality standard are scarce.…”