Towards a global list of accepted species V. The devil is in the detail

Pyle, Richard L.; Barik, Saroj Kanta; Christidis, Les; Conix, Stijn; Costello, Mark J.; Dijk, Peter Paul van; Garnett, Stephen T.; Hobern, Donald; Kirk, Paul M.; Lien, Aaron M.; Orrell, Thomas; Remsen, David; Thomson, Scott; Wambiji, Nina; Zachos, Frank E.; Zhang, Zhi‐Qiang; Thiele, Kevin R.

doi:10.1007/s13127-021-00504-0

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the uncertainty in the validity of some taxa, Kitchener et al (2022) developed a traffic-light system, which indicates the level of certainty in support of the recognition of each taxon that typically included morphological, genetic and biogeographical supporting data. Similarly, Pyle et al (2021) suggested that challenges in the development of global species lists include defining what each taxon represents, the scope or breadth of the taxonomic work, the ranks that are covered (e.g. unnamed taxonomic units, www.publish.csiro.au/am Australian Mammalogy species only, or all ranks), and the level of confidence in the taxon.…”

Section: Species Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of appropriate taxonomy in Australian mammalogy

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of correct taxonomy to describe and name the earth’s biodiversity is fundamental to conservation and management. However, there are issues that need to be overcome to ensure that the described taxa and their scientific names are both appropriate and widely adopted. Obstacles to this include the use of different species definitions, taxonomic instability due to accumulation of additional specimens in analyses and the progression of science that allows better resolution of species boundaries, and the inappropriate description and naming of new taxa without adequate scientific basis in self-published journals (known as ‘taxonomic vandalism’). In an effort to manage taxonomic instability, the Australasian Mammal Taxonomy Consortium (AMTC), an affiliated body of the Australian Mammal Society, has developed several tools that include: (1) a standardised list of Australian mammal common and scientific names; (2) recommendations for information that should be included in published species descriptions; and (3) support for the publication of aspidonyms (i.e. a scientifically acceptable name proposed to overwrite a pre-existing unscientific name). This review discusses these issues, reaffirms the foundations for appropriate taxonomic research, and provides guidelines for those publishing taxonomic research on Australian mammals.

show abstract

Section: Species Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of appropriate taxonomy in Australian mammalogy

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…taxID) and taxonomic names in the biodiversity domain, in a manner that is harmonised across repositories. This is exemplified by issues raised regarding the pressing need for collaborative efforts to build a common taxonomic framework ( Thiele et al 2021 ; Thomson et al 2021 ; Conix et al 2021 ; Lien et al 2021 ; Pyle et al 2021 ; Hobern et al 2021 ). This would provide tools to deal with synonyms and updates, it would enable better understanding of the meaning of a taxonomic name through access to taxonomic treatments, and it would facilitate annotations and links with external data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for connecting molecular sequence and biodiversity research infrastructures through ELIXIR

Waterhouse

Adam-Blondon

Agosti³

et al. 2022

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Threats to global biodiversity are increasingly recognised by scientists and the public as a critical challenge. Molecular sequencing technologies offer means to catalogue, explore, and monitor the richness and biogeography of life on Earth. However, exploiting their full potential requires tools that connect biodiversity infrastructures and resources. As a research infrastructure developing services and technical solutions that help integrate and coordinate life science resources across Europe, ELIXIR is a key player. To identify opportunities, highlight priorities, and aid strategic thinking, here we survey approaches by which molecular technologies help inform understanding of biodiversity. We detail example use cases to highlight how DNA sequencing is: resolving taxonomic issues; Increasing knowledge of marine biodiversity; helping understand how agriculture and biodiversity are critically linked; and playing an essential role in ecological studies. Together with examples of national biodiversity programmes, the use cases show where progress is being made but also highlight common challenges and opportunities for future enhancement of underlying technologies and services that connect molecular and wider biodiversity domains. Based on emerging themes, we propose key recommendations to guide future funding for biodiversity research: biodiversity and bioinformatic infrastructures need to collaborate closely and strategically; taxonomic efforts need to be aligned and harmonised across domains; metadata needs to be standardised and common data management approaches widely adopted; current approaches need to be scaled up dramatically to address the anticipated explosion of molecular data; bioinformatics support for biodiversity research needs to be enabled and sustained; training for end users of biodiversity research infrastructures needs to be prioritised; and community initiatives need to be proactive and focused on enabling solutions. For sequencing data to deliver their full potential they must be connected to knowledge: together, molecular sequence data collection initiatives and biodiversity research infrastructures can advance global efforts to prevent further decline of Earth’s biodiversity.

show abstract

“…They should also evolve, for instance, by taking into account representation issues, ranging from gender, race to regional biases. The recent proposal to unify avian checklists worldwide (Conix et al 2021;Hobern et al 2021;Lien et al 2021;Pyle et al 2021;Thiele et al 2021;Thomson et al 2021) is a true testament of the importance of the work being carried out by taxonomy committees, which provide a "summary" of avian diversity that can be easily used by multiple sectors within and beyond academia, including the birding community, nature lovers, journalists, bloggers, stakeholders, and policy-makers. While the advantages of having a single and standardized avian checklist for the entire planet are manifold, implementing this vision will be fraught with difficulties ranging from deciding on a given species concept to be applied consistently throughout all avian lineages based in most cases on fragmentary evidence, to paying the needed attention to inequality issues.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On species concepts, species delimitation criteria, taxonomy committees, and biases: a response to Lima (2022a)

Aleixo

2023

Ornithol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent commentary, Lima (Ornithol Res 30:225–228, 2022a) claims that the Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee (CBRO) bases its species ranking decisions on a misinterpretation of the general lineage species concept (GLSC), with two major detrimental consequences: (1) misinform the Brazilian ornithological community about the nature of interspecific limits and (2) mislead the users of the CBRO checklist “…about the nature of the taxa it contains.” Here, I review the arguments behind Lima’s (Ornithol Res 30:225–228, 2022a) claims and demonstrate that they are unfounded and stem from an inaccurate interpretation of the GLSC coupled with a lack of understanding the differences between the inherent theoretical nature of species concepts and their actual implementation in real-life situations by taxonomists in general and taxonomy committees in particular. Accordingly, I provide several examples of recent taxonomic treatments implemented by the CBRO, confirming the GLSC as the species concept guiding species ranking decisions in the committee. If not addressed properly, unsubstantiated commentaries such as that put forward by Lima (Ornithol Res 30:225–228, 2022a) — which cast serious doubts on the standards upon which the checklists of the CBRO are produced — may have the unintended effect of amplifying the current representation bias against Latin American ornithologists in global initiatives such as the publication of a single worldwide avian checklist.

show abstract

Towards a global list of accepted species V. The devil is in the detail

Cited by 13 publications

References 72 publications

The importance of appropriate taxonomy in Australian mammalogy

The importance of appropriate taxonomy in Australian mammalogy

Recommendations for connecting molecular sequence and biodiversity research infrastructures through ELIXIR

On species concepts, species delimitation criteria, taxonomy committees, and biases: a response to Lima (2022a)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About