skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • An updated checklist of the Tenebrionidae sec. Bousquet et al. 2018 of the Algodones Dunes of California, with comments on checklist data practices
Title: An updated checklist of the Tenebrionidae sec. Bousquet et al. 2018 of the Algodones Dunes of California, with comments on checklist data practices
Generating regional checklists for insects is frequently based on combining data sources ranging from literature and expert assertions that merely imply the existence of an occurrence to aggregated, standard-compliant data of uniquely identified specimens. The increasing diversity of data sources also means that checklist authors are faced with new responsibilities, effectively acting as filterers to select and utilize an expert-validated subset of all available data. Authors are also faced with the technical obstacle to bring more occurrences into Darwin Core-based data aggregation, even if the corresponding specimens belong to external institutions. We illustrate these issues based on a partial update of the Kimsey et al. 2017 checklist of darkling beetles - Tenebrionidae sec. Bousquet et al. 2018 - inhabiting the Algodones Dunes of California. Our update entails 54 species-level concepts for this group and region, of which 31 concepts were found to be represented in three specimen-data aggregator portals, based on our interpretations of the aggregators' data. We reassess the distributions and biogeographic affinities of these species, focusing on taxa that are precinctive (highly geographically restricted) to the Lower Colorado River Valley in the context of recent dune formation from the Colorado River. Throughout, we apply taxonomic concept labels (taxonomic name according to source) to contextualize preferred name usages, but also show that the identification data of aggregated occurrences are very rarely well-contextualized or annotated. Doing so is a pre-requisite for publishing open, dynamic checklist versions that finely accredit incremental expert efforts spent to improve the quality of checklists and aggregated occurrence data.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1754731
PAR ID:
10164637
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Biodiversity Data Journal
Volume:
6
ISSN:
1314-2836
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e24927
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, Zenodo)
    Introduction This archive includes a tab-delimited (tsv) and comma-delimited (csv) version of the Discover Life bee species guide and world checklist (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). Discover Life is an important resource for bee species names and this update is from Draft-55, November 2020. Data were accessed and transformed into a tsv file in August 2023 using Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI) nomer software. GloBI now incorporates the Discover Life bee species guide and world checklist in its functionality for searching for bee interactions. Update! New Dataset also includes Subgenera Names A new, tab-delimited version of the Discover Life taxonomy as derived from Dorey et. al, 2023 can be found via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10463762. This version of the Discover Life world species guide and checklist includes subgeneric names. Citation Please cite the original source for this data as: Ascher, J. S. and J. Pickering. 2022.Discover Life bee species guide and world checklist (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila).http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Apoidea_species Draft-56, 21 August, 2022 nomer nomer is a command-line application for working with taxonomic resources offline. nomer incorporates many of the present taxonomic catalogs (e.g., catalog of life, ITIS, EOL, NCBI) and provides simple tools for comparing between resources or resolving taxonomic names based on one or more taxonomic name catalogs. Discover Life is in nomer version 0.5.1 and this full dataset can be recreated by installing nomer from https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/nomer and running $ nomer list discoverlife > discoverlife.tsv Data Columns Discover Life provides a world name checklist and includes other names (synonyms and homonyms) that refer to the same species. In the tsv file, the provided name is both the accepted, or checklist name, or "other name." All names will be listed as a providedName. Below is an example subset of the transformed version of the data. providedExternalId= link to name on Discover Life providedName=an accepted or "other name" in the Discover Life bee checklist. "Other names" can be synonyms or homonyms. providedAuthorship=authorship for the providedName providedRank=rank of the providedName providedPath=higher taxonomy of the providedName. This will be the same as the accepted name or resolvedName relationName=relationship between the "other name" and the bee name in the Discover Life checklist. It may include itself resolvedExternalID=an accepted name in the Discover Life bee checklist resolvedExternalId=link to name on Discover Life resolvedAuthorship=authorship of the accepted, or checklist name resolvedRank=rank of the accepted, or checklist name resolvedPath=higher taxonomy of the accepted, or checklist name Changes No major changes to format in this version. References Jorrit Poelen, & José Augusto Salim. (2022). globalbioticinteractions/nomer: (0.2.11). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6128011 Poelen JH, Simons JD and Mungall CH. (2014). Global Biotic Interactions: An open infrastructure to share and analyze species-interaction datasets. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.08.005. Seltmann KC, Allen J, Brown BV, Carper A, Engel MS, Franz N, Gilbert E, Grinter C, Gonzalez VH, Horsley P, Lee S, Maier C, Miko I, Morris P, Oboyski P, Pierce NE, Poelen J, Scott VL, Smith M, Talamas EJ, Tsutsui ND, Tucker E (2021) Announcing Big-Bee: An initiative to promote understanding of bees through image and trait digitization. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 5: e74037. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.5.74037 Dorey, J.B., Fischer, E.E., Chesshire, P.R. et al. A globally synthesised and flagged bee occurrence dataset and cleaning workflow. Sci Data 10, 747 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02626-w 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; (, Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    Making the most of biodiversity data requires linking observations of biological species from multiple sources both efficiently and accurately (Bisby 2000, Franz et al. 2016). Aggregating occurrence records using taxonomic names and synonyms is computationally efficient but known to experience significant limitations on accuracy when the assumption of one-to-one relationships between names and biological entities breaks down (Remsen 2016, Franz and Sterner 2018). Taxonomic treatments and checklists provide authoritative information about the correct usage of names for species, including operational representations of the meanings of those names in the form of range maps, reference genetic sequences, or diagnostic traits. They increasingly provide taxonomic intelligence in the form of precise description of the semantic relationships between different published names in the literature. Making this authoritative information Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR; Wilkinson et al. 2016) would be a transformative advance for biodiversity data sharing and help drive adoption and novel extensions of existing standards such as the Taxonomic Concept Schema and the OpenBiodiv Ontology (Kennedy et al. 2006, Senderov et al. 2018). We call for the greater, global Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) and taxonomy community to commit to extending and expanding on how FAIR applies to biodiversity data and include practical targets and criteria for the publication and digitization of taxonomic concept representations and alignments in taxonomic treatments, checklists, and backbones. As a motivating case, consider the abundantly sampled North American deer mouse— Peromyscus maniculatus (Wagner 1845)—which was recently split from one continental species into five more narrowly defined forms, so that the name P. maniculatus is now only applied east of the Mississippi River (Bradley et al. 2019, Greenbaum et al. 2019). That single change instantly rendered ambiguous ~7% of North American mammal records in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (n=242,663, downloaded 2021-06-04; GBIF.org 2021) and ⅓ of all National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) small mammal samples (n=10,256, downloaded 2021-06-27). While this type of ambiguity is common in name-based databases when species are split, the example of P. maniculatus is particularly striking for its impact upon biological questions ranging from hantavirus surveillance in North America to studies of climate change impacts upon rodent life-history traits. Of special relevance to NEON sampling is recent evidence suggesting deer mice potentially transmit SARS-CoV-2 (Griffin et al. 2021). Automating the updating of occurrence records in such cases and others will require operational representations of taxonomic concepts—e.g., range maps, reference sequences, and diagnostic traits—that are FAIR in addition to taxonomic concept alignment information (Franz and Peet 2009). Despite steady progress, it remains difficult to find, access, and reuse authoritative information about how to apply taxonomic names even when it is already digitized. It can also be difficult to tell without manual inspection whether similar types of concept representations derived from multiple sources, such as range maps or reference sequences selected from different research articles or checklists, are in fact interoperable for a particular application. The issue is therefore different from important ongoing efforts to digitize trait information in species circumscriptions, for example, and focuses on how already digitized knowledge can best be packaged to inform human experts and artifical intelligence applications (Sterner and Franz 2017). We therefore propose developing community guidelines and criteria for FAIR taxonomic concept representations as "semantic artefacts" of general relevance to linked open data and life sciences research (Le Franc et al. 2020). 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    null (Ed.)
    “What is crucial for your ability to communicate with me… pivots on the recipient’s capacity to interpret—to make good inferential sense of the meanings that the declarer is able to send” (Rescher 2000, p148). Conventional approaches to reconciling taxonomic information in biodiversity databases have been based on string matching for unique taxonomic name combinations (Kindt 2020, Norman et al. 2020). However, in their original context, these names pertain to specific usages or taxonomic concepts, which can subsequently vary for the same name as applied by different authors. Name-based synonym matching is a helpful first step (Guala 2016, Correia et al. 2018), but may still leave considerable ambiguity regarding proper usage (Fig. 1). Therefore, developing "taxonomic intelligence" is the bioinformatic challenge to adequately represent, and subsequently propagate, this complex name/usage interaction across trusted biodiversity data networks. How do we ensure that senders and recipients of biodiversity data not only can share messages but do so with “good inferential sense” of their respective meanings? Key obstacles have involved dealing with the complexity of taxonomic name/usage modifications through time, both in terms of accounting for and digitally representing the long histories of taxonomic change in most lineages. An important critique of proposals to use name-to-usage relationships for data aggregation has been the difficulty of scaling them up to reach comprehensive coverage, in contrast to name-based global taxonomic hierarchies (Bisby 2011). The Linnaean system of nomenclature has some unfortunate design limitations in this regard, in that taxonomic names are not unique identifiers, their meanings may change over time, and the names as a string of characters do not encode their proper usage, i.e., the name “Genus species” does not specify a source defining how to use the name correctly (Remsen 2016, Sterner and Franz 2017). In practice, many people provide taxonomic names in their datasets or publications but not a source specifying a usage. The information needed to map the relationships between names and usages in taxonomic monographs or revisions is typically not presented it in a machine-readable format. New approaches are making progress on these obstacles. Theoretical advances in the representation of taxonomic intelligence have made it increasingly possible to implement efficient querying and reasoning methods on name-usage relationships (Chen et al. 2014, Chawuthai et al. 2016, Franz et al. 2015). Perhaps most importantly, growing efforts to produce name-usage mappings on a medium scale by data providers and taxonomic authorities suggest an all-or-nothing approach is not required. Multiple high-profile biodiversity databases have implemented internal tools for explicitly tracking conflicting or dynamic taxonomic classifications, including eBird using concept relationships from AviBase (Lepage et al. 2014); NatureServe in its Biotics database; iNaturalist using its taxon framework (Loarie 2020); and the UNITE database for fungi (Nilsson et al. 2019). Other ongoing projects incorporating taxonomic intelligence include the Flora of Alaska (Flora of Alaska 2020), the Mammal Diversity Database (Mammal Diversity Database 2020) and PollardBase for butterfly population monitoring (Campbell et al. 2020). 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    We provide an overview and update on initiatives and approaches to add taxonomic data intelligence to distributed biodiversity knowledge networks. "Taxonomic intelligence" for biodiversity data is defined here as the ability to identify and renconcile source-contextualized taxonomic name-to-meaning relationships (Remsen 2016). We review the scientific opportunities, as well as information-technological and socio-economic pathways - both existing and envisioned - to embed de-centralized taxonomic data intelligence into the biodiversity data publication and knowledge intedgration processes. We predict that the success of this project will ultimately rest on our ability to up-value the roles and recognition of systematic expertise and experts in large, aggregated data environments. We will argue that these environments will need to adhere to criteria for responsible data science and interests of coherent communities of practice (Wenger 2000, Stoyanovich et al. 2017). This means allowing for fair, accountable, and transparent representation and propagation of evolving systematic knowledge and enduring or newly apparent conflict in systematic perspective (Sterner and Franz 2017, Franz and Sterner 2018, Sterner et al. 2019). We will demonstrate in principle and through concrete use cases, how to de-centralize systematic knowledge while maintaining alignments between congruent or concflicting taxonomic concept labels (Franz et al. 2016a, Franz et al. 2016b, Franz et al. 2019). The suggested approach uses custom-configured logic representation and reasoning methods, based on the Region Connection Calculus (RCC-5) alignment language. The approach offers syntactic consistency and semantic applicability or scalability across a wide range of biodiversity data products, ranging from occurrence records to phylogenomic trees. We will also illustrate how this kind of taxonomic data intelligence can be captured and propagated through existing or envisioned metadata conventions and standards (e.g., Senderov et al. 2018). Having established an intellectual opportunity, as well as a technical solution pathway, we turn to the issue of developing an implementation and adoption strategy. Which biodiversity data environments are currently the most taxonomically intelligent, and why? How is this level of taxonomic data intelligence created, maintained, and propagated outward? How are taxonomic data intelligence services motivated or incentivized, both at the level of individuals and organizations? Which "concerned entities" within the greater biodiversity data publication enterprise are best positioned to promote such services? Are the most valuable lessons for biodiversity data science "hidden" in successful social media applications? What are good, feasible, incremental steps towards improving taxonomic data intelligence for a diversity of data publishers? 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Bionomina)
    Roberts et al. (2022) presented a taxonomic decision, in which they proposed the species name longhagen for a single, poorly preserved specimen of elapid New Guinean snake in the species assemblage known as the Toxicocalamus loriae Group. Geographically widespread populations in this species group had long been united under a single name even though some character variation had been noted, and only a thorough morphological study by Kraus et al. (2022), published shortly after the description of T. longhagen, confirmed additional species-level diversity and the detail of character analysis needed to differentiate species in this group. Their work made clear that only examination of many specimens would allow an assessment of interspecific variation and species boundaries, and this had been explained to the authors of the Roberts et al. paper ahead of their manuscript submission. The authors of the Kraus et al. paper had examined the specimen used to diagnose T. longhagen, as well as a series of similar specimens, and found it impossible to make a reliable species-level determination. Our detailed evaluation of the taxon longhagen reveals that it is insufficiently differentiated from the now-known species of the T. loriae Group, that it cannot confidently be assigned to any of these species, and that none of the existing specimens of snakes in this group can be assigned to T. longhagen. It follows that T. longhagen as currently defined is a taxonomic nomen dubium. It will retain this status until such time when additional data or additional material can lead to a resolution of its taxonomy. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email