An official website of the United States government
The taxonomic foundation of a new regional flora or monograph is the reconciliation of pre-existing names and taxonomic concepts (i.e., variation in usage of those names). This reconciliation is traditionally done manually, but the availability of taxonomic resources online and of text manipulation software means that some of the work can now be automated, speeding up the development of new taxonomic products. As a contribution to developing a new Flora of Alaska (floraofalaska.org), we have digitized the main pre-existing flora (Hultén 1968) and combined it with key online taxonomic name sources (Panarctic Flora, Flora of North America, International Plant Names Index - IPNI, Tropicos, Kew’s World Checklist of Selected Plant Families), to build a canonical list of names anchored to external Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) (e.g., IPNI URLs). We developed taxonomically-aware fuzzy-matching software ( matchnames , Webb 2020) to identify cognates in different lists. The taxa for which there are variations between different sources in accepted names and synonyms are then flagged for review by taxonomic experts. However, even though names may be consistent across previous monographs and floras, the taxonomic concept (or circumscription) of a name may differ among authors, meaning that the way an accepted name in the flora is applied may be unfamiliar to the users of previous floras. We therefore have begun to manually align taxonomic concepts across five existing floras: Panarctic Flora, Flora of North America, Cody’s Flora of the Yukon (Cody 2000), Welsh’s Flora (Welsh 1974) and Hultén’s Flora (Hultén 1968), analysing usage and recording the Region Connection Calculus (RCC-5) relationships between taxonomic concepts common to each source. So far, we have mapped taxa in 13 genera, containing 557 taxonomic concepts and 482 taxonomic concept relationships. To facilitate this alignment process we developed software ( tcm , Webb 2021) to record publications, names, taxonomic concepts and relationships, and to visualize the taxonomic concept relationships as graphs. These relationship graphs have proved to be accessible and valuable in discussing the frequently complex shifts in circumscription with the taxonomic experts who have reviewed the work. The taxonomic concept data are being integrated into the larger dataset to permit users of the new flora to instantly see both the chain of synonymy and concept map for any name. We have also worked with the developer of the Arctos Collection Management Solution (a database used for the majority of Alaskan collections) on new data tables for storage and display of taxonomic concept data. In this presentation, we will describe some of the ideas and workflows that may be of value to others working to connect across taxonomic resources.
more »
« less
The Claytonia arctica Complex in Alaska—Analyzing a Beringian Taxonomic Puzzle Using Taxonomic Concepts
Trans-Beringia taxa often present complex puzzles for taxonomists, a reflection of differing traditions and opinions, taxonomic approaches, and access to material from both sides of the Bering Strait. There is wide biological variation in perceived or circumscribed taxa whose populations are widespread within the regions and yet biogeographically isolated in Asia and/or America. The Claytonia arctica complex is one such example; it illustrates these issues well and has been dealt with by North American and Russian botanists in decidedly different ways. We reviewed specimens and examined the various taxonomic concepts of C. arctica through time and source publications. The relationships (alignments) among taxonomic concepts are presented in a graphical format. We found that much of the confusion related to C. arctica in Beringia stems from overlookingC. scammaniana Hultén sensu Hultén (1939), and placing too much emphasis on the woody caudex and perennation structures, during the creation of two taxonomic concepts: C. arctica Adams sensu Porsild and C. porsildii Jurtzev sensu Yurtsev. The C. arctica complex (in our current sense) is an evolutionary work in progress, resulting in partially differentiated races with much overlapping variability and intergradation of characters (particularly in C. scammaniana according to our current sense) that have not reached the level of stability (i.e., individuals may still intergrade freely) usually associated with the concept of species in other arctic lineages.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1759964
- PAR ID:
- 10181607
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden
- Volume:
- 104
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 0026-6493
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 478 to 494
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Speciation processes in plants can be difficult to evaluate, but are essential to understanding evolutionary processes that lead to diversification. Determining the juncture at which a genetically and/or morphologically divergent population can be reliably considered a separate species is often challenging. This is particularly so with respect to recent divergences amongst closely related taxa wherein factors such as incomplete lineage sorting may yield confounding results. Taxa in theCymopterus terebinthinus(Apiaceae) species complex have long puzzled botanists. Named entities in this group display similar, yet apparently distinct morphologies that have been classified as varieties under various generic names highlighting long‐standing nomenclatural instability. Previous phylogenetic studies have challenged the monophyly of this complex. This study aims to clarify taxonomic boundaries and infer evolutionary relationships among the fourC. terebinthinusvarieties andC. petraeusby applying phylogenetic inference and incorporating ecological, morphological, and geographical evidence. We sampled from populations of all varieties ofC. terebinthinusandC. petraeusfor target capture with the Angiosperms353 bait kit. We performed phylogenetic analyses with maximum likelihood (RAxML and IQ‐TREE) and coalescent‐based phylogenetic analysis (ASTRAL). We also conducted principal component analysis of soil samples and climatic variables. We find thatC. terebinthinusand its varietal infrataxa comprise a monophyletic clade that includesC. petraeus. Clade groupings correspond to previous taxonomic assignments and morphology. Clades are often closely associated with geographical variables and at times correlated with ecological variables. Exceptions to this are here attributed to various evolutionary factors that often confound other phylogenetic analyses such as incomplete lineage sorting, introgression, and paralogous loci. Our findings suggests that geographical factors might play a major role in genetic and morphological differentiation in this complex. Despite finding well‐supported clades that correspond to defined morphological characters; further sampling amongC. petraeuspopulations is required to make taxonomic decisions.more » « less
-
Taxonomy is foundational to all biological sciences. Names allow us to organize and communicate information about biological groups. This process is critical for understanding and preserving the biodiversity of our planet. There are an estimated 8.7 million extant eukaryotes (Mora et al. 2011) and possibly as many as 1 trillion microbial species (Locey and Lennon 2016), with untold numbers of extinct taxa yet to be discovered in the fossil record. Accounting for all these taxa and maintaining their nomenclatural resources is one of the great challenges in biology. A few major hurdles in overcoming this challenge are the inability to find, share, and update taxonomic resources efficiently in real time. Efforts to standardize and continually update taxonomic names in a sustainable way have been limited. The problem is complex, and solutions must deal with the large backlog of names, a constant stream of new names, the confusing merging and splitting of taxonomic synonyms, the subjective nature of taxonomic concepts, and the fundamental limitations on available expertise and curators' time to prepare and maintain such resources. Hyperdiverse groups such as arthropods are especially challenging as there are relatively few experts on any given lineage and changes in taxonomy can be rapid as new species are continually being discovered and described. After struggling to wrangle taxonomic resources in support of specimen digitization efforts, I began development of TaxoTracker as a proof-of-concept, web-based platform for facilitating expert curation and dissemination of biological taxonomies. TaxoTracker is still in development, but its current and planned functionalities will be shown through a combination of demonstration and discussion. TaxoTracker identifies and implements features that attempt to simplify the production and maintenance of expert-curated resources, while also limiting the responsibilities that are placed on individual experts who are often already overburdened and underfunded. These features include: Centralized, searchable, and easily obtained resources in useful formats Community-driven, citation-based curatorial suggestions Expert-reviewed curatorial recommendations Consensus-driven curatorial decisions Effort tracking and credit for suggestions and reviews Centralized, searchable, and easily obtained resources in useful formats Community-driven, citation-based curatorial suggestions Expert-reviewed curatorial recommendations Consensus-driven curatorial decisions Effort tracking and credit for suggestions and reviewsmore » « less
-
Taxonomic classification is fundamental for understanding the natural world, yet current methods for unknown species assessment are based on qualitative methods and focused on craniodental morphology. It is currently unknown how much variation could, or should, exist within a particular genus. Here, we tested whether taxonomy can be accurately predicted from patterns of morphological variation in a geographically widespread taxa, the macaques (H1) and whether postcranial bones reflect subgeneric taxonomy similarly, or better, than the cranium (H2). Data included 3D scans from nine species (M. arctoides, M. fascicularis, M. fuscata, M. mulatta, M. nemestrina, M. nigra, M. radiata, M. sylvanus, and outgroup Trachypithecus cristatus), for a sample of 297 individuals. Macaque species were chosen for their phylogenetic diversity and their geographic representation. 293 fixed and semilandmarks were applied to eight skeletal elements for each individual (crania=45; mandible=31; scapula=66; humerus=38; radius=33; os coxa=28; femur=40; tibia=40). A regression analysis was performed to minimize the effects of sexual dimorphism, making the primary input variables regression residuals. Patterns of variation were analyzed between- and within-species via Canonical Variates Analysis and 2D Multidimensional Scaling. Classificatory ability was tested using Discriminant Function Analysis. Results suggest that different species of macaque monkeys are taxonomically distinct and that the crania and postcrania possess a taxonomic signal. Some bones, like the limb bones, were more useful taxonomically than previously realized. Results suggest that taxonomic assessment should be updated to reflect newer methodologies and we argue that these results should inform future studies.more » « less
-
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
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3417/2019491
