skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 5:00 PM ET until 11:00 PM ET on Friday, June 21 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Integrating Taxonomic Names and Concepts from Paper and Digital Sources for a New Flora of Alaska
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
Award ID(s):
1759964
NSF-PAR ID:
10353593
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Biodiversity Information Science and Standards
Volume:
5
ISSN:
2535-0897
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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
  2. 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. Abstract Biodiversity research has advanced by testing expectations of ecological and evolutionary hypotheses through the linking of large-scale genetic, distributional, and trait datasets. The rise of molecular systematics over the past 30 years has resulted in a wealth of DNA sequences from around the globe. Yet, advances in molecular systematics also have created taxonomic instability, as new estimates of evolutionary relationships and interpretations of species limits have required widespread scientific name changes. Taxonomic instability, colloquially “splits, lumps, and shuffles,” presents logistical challenges to large-scale biodiversity research because (1) the same species or sets of populations may be listed under different names in different data sources, or (2) the same name may apply to different sets of populations representing different taxonomic concepts. Consequently, distributional and trait data are often difficult to link directly to primary DNA sequence data without extensive and time-consuming curation. Here, we present RANT: Reconciliation of Avian NCBI Taxonomy. RANT applies taxonomic reconciliation to standardize avian taxon names in use in NCBI GenBank, a primary source of genetic data, to a widely used and regularly updated avian taxonomy: eBird/Clements. Of 14,341 avian species/subspecies names in GenBank, 11,031 directly matched an eBird/Clements; these link to more than 6 million nucleotide sequences. For the remaining unmatched avian names in GenBank, we used Avibase’s system of taxonomic concepts, taxonomic descriptions in Cornell’s Birds of the World, and DNA sequence metadata to identify corresponding eBird/Clements names. Reconciled names linked to more than 600,000 nucleotide sequences, ~9% of all avian sequences on GenBank. Nearly 10% of eBird/Clements names had nucleotide sequences listed under 2 or more GenBank names. Our taxonomic reconciliation is a first step towards rigorous and open-source curation of avian GenBank sequences and is available at GitHub, where it can be updated to correspond to future annual eBird/Clements taxonomic updates. 
    more » « less
  4. We are now over four decades into digitally managing the names of Earth's species. As the number of federating (i.e., software that brings together previously disparate projects under a common infrastructure, for example TaxonWorks) and aggregating (e.g., International Plant Name Index, Catalog of Life (CoL)) efforts increase, there remains an unmet need for both the migration forward of old data, and for the production of new, precise and comprehensive nomenclatural catalogs. Given this context, we provide an overview of how TaxonWorks seeks to contribute to this effort, and where it might evolve in the future. In TaxonWorks, when we talk about governed names and relationships, we mean it in the sense of existing international codes of nomenclature (e.g., the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)). More technically, nomenclature is defined as a set of objective assertions that describe the relationships between the names given to biological taxa and the rules that determine how those names are governed. It is critical to note that this is not the same thing as the relationship between a name and a biological entity, but rather nomenclature in TaxonWorks represents the details of the (governed) relationships between names. Rather than thinking of nomenclature as changing (a verb commonly used to express frustration with biological nomenclature), it is useful to think of nomenclature as a set of data points, which grows over time. For example, when synonymy happens, we do not erase the past, but rather record a new context for the name(s) in question. The biological concept changes, but the nomenclature (names) simply keeps adding up. Behind the scenes, nomenclature in TaxonWorks is represented by a set of nodes and edges, i.e., a mathematical graph, or network (e.g., Fig. 1). Most names (i.e., nodes in the network) are what TaxonWorks calls "protonyms," monomial epithets that are used to construct, for example, bionomial names (not to be confused with "protonym" sensu the ICZN). Protonyms are linked to other protonyms via relationships defined in NOMEN, an ontology that encodes governed rules of nomenclature. Within the system, all data, nodes and edges, can be cited, i.e., linked to a source and therefore anchored in time and tied to authorship, and annotated with a variety of annotation types (e.g., notes, confidence levels, tags). The actual building of the graphs is greatly simplified by multiple user-interfaces that allow scientists to review (e.g. Fig. 2), create, filter, and add to (again, not "change") the nomenclatural history. As in any complex knowledge-representation model, there are outlying scenarios, or edge cases that emerge, making certain human tasks more complex than others. TaxonWorks is no exception, it has limitations in terms of what and how some things can be represented. While many complex representations are hidden by simplified user-interfaces, some, for example, the handling of the ICZN's Family-group name, batch-loading of invalid relationships, and comparative syncing against external resources need more work to simplify the processes presently required to meet catalogers' needs. The depth at which TaxonWorks can capture nomenclature is only really valuable if it can be used by others. This is facilitated by the application programming interface (API) serving its data (https://api.taxonworks.org), serving text files, and by exports to standards like the emerging Catalog of Life Data Package. With reference to real-world problems, we illustrate different ways in which the API can be used, for example, as integrated into spreadsheets, through the use of command line scripts, and serve in the generation of public-facing websites. Behind all this effort are an increasing number of people recording help videos, developing documentation, and troubleshooting software and technical issues. Major contributions have come from developers at many skill levels, from high school to senior software engineers, illustrating that TaxonWorks leads in enabling both technical and domain-based contributions. The health and growth of this community is a key factor in TaxonWork's potential long-term impact in the effort to unify the names of Earth's species. 
    more » « less
  5. It takes great effort to manually or semi-automatically convert free-text phenotype narratives (e.g., morphological descriptions in taxonomic works) to a computable format before they can be used in large-scale analyses. We argue that neither a manual curation approach nor an information extraction approach based on machine learning is a sustainable solution to produce computable phenotypic data that are FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) (Wilkinson et al. 2016). This is because these approaches do not scale to all biodiversity, and they do not stop the publication of free-text phenotypes that would need post-publication curation. In addition, both manual and machine learning approaches face great challenges: the problem of inter-curator variation (curators interpret/convert a phenotype differently from each other) in manual curation, and keywords to ontology concept translation in automated information extraction, make it difficult for either approach to produce data that are truly FAIR. Our empirical studies show that inter-curator variation in translating phenotype characters to Entity-Quality statements (Mabee et al. 2007) is as high as 40% even within a single project. With this level of variation, curated data integrated from multiple curation projects may still not be FAIR. The key causes of this variation have been identified as semantic vagueness in original phenotype descriptions and difficulties in using standardized vocabularies (ontologies). We argue that the authors describing characters are the key to the solution. Given the right tools and appropriate attribution, the authors should be in charge of developing a project's semantics and ontology. This will speed up ontology development and improve the semantic clarity of the descriptions from the moment of publication. In this presentation, we will introduce the Platform for Author-Driven Computable Data and Ontology Production for Taxonomists, which consists of three components: a web-based, ontology-aware software application called 'Character Recorder,' which features a spreadsheet as the data entry platform and provides authors with the flexibility of using their preferred terminology in recording characters for a set of specimens (this application also facilitates semantic clarity and consistency across species descriptions); a set of services that produce RDF graph data, collects terms added by authors, detects potential conflicts between terms, dispatches conflicts to the third component and updates the ontology with resolutions; and an Android mobile application, 'Conflict Resolver,' which displays ontological conflicts and accepts solutions proposed by multiple experts. a web-based, ontology-aware software application called 'Character Recorder,' which features a spreadsheet as the data entry platform and provides authors with the flexibility of using their preferred terminology in recording characters for a set of specimens (this application also facilitates semantic clarity and consistency across species descriptions); a set of services that produce RDF graph data, collects terms added by authors, detects potential conflicts between terms, dispatches conflicts to the third component and updates the ontology with resolutions; and an Android mobile application, 'Conflict Resolver,' which displays ontological conflicts and accepts solutions proposed by multiple experts. Fig. 1 shows the system diagram of the platform. The presentation will consist of: a report on the findings from a recent survey of 90+ participants on the need for a tool like Character Recorder; a methods section that describes how we provide semantics to an existing vocabulary of quantitative characters through a set of properties that explain where and how a measurement (e.g., length of perigynium beak) is taken. We also report on how a custom color palette of RGB values obtained from real specimens or high-quality specimen images, can be used to help authors choose standardized color descriptions for plant specimens; and a software demonstration, where we show how Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver can work together to construct both human-readable descriptions and RDF graphs using morphological data derived from species in the plant genus Carex (sedges). The key difference of this system from other ontology-aware systems is that authors can directly add needed terms to the ontology as they wish and can update their data according to ontology updates. a report on the findings from a recent survey of 90+ participants on the need for a tool like Character Recorder; a methods section that describes how we provide semantics to an existing vocabulary of quantitative characters through a set of properties that explain where and how a measurement (e.g., length of perigynium beak) is taken. We also report on how a custom color palette of RGB values obtained from real specimens or high-quality specimen images, can be used to help authors choose standardized color descriptions for plant specimens; and a software demonstration, where we show how Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver can work together to construct both human-readable descriptions and RDF graphs using morphological data derived from species in the plant genus Carex (sedges). The key difference of this system from other ontology-aware systems is that authors can directly add needed terms to the ontology as they wish and can update their data according to ontology updates. The software modules currently incorporated in Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver have undergone formal usability studies. We are actively recruiting Carex experts to participate in a 3-day usability study of the entire system of the Platform for Author-Driven Computable Data and Ontology Production for Taxonomists. Participants will use the platform to record 100 characters about one Carex species. In addition to usability data, we will collect the terms that participants submit to the underlying ontology and the data related to conflict resolution. Such data allow us to examine the types and the quantities of logical conflicts that may result from the terms added by the users and to use Discrete Event Simulation models to understand if and how term additions and conflict resolutions converge. We look forward to a discussion on how the tools (Character Recorder is online at http://shark.sbs.arizona.edu/chrecorder/public) described in our presentation can contribute to producing and publishing FAIR data in taxonomic studies. 
    more » « less