FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2179969133> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2179969133 endingPage "R1067" @default.
• W2179969133 startingPage "R1066" @default.
• W2179969133 abstract "Specimens of plants and animals preserved in museums are the primary source of verifiable data on the geographical and temporal distribution of organisms. Museum datasets are increasingly being uploaded to aggregated regional and global databases (e.g. the Global Biodiversity Information Facility; GBIF) for use in a wide range of analyses [1Khoury C.K. Heider B. Castañeda-Alvarez N.P. Achicanoy H.A. Sosa C.C. Miller R.E. Scotland R.W. Wood J.R.I. Rossel G. Eserman L.A. et al.Distributions, ex situ conservation priorities, and genetic resource potential of crop wild relatives of sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam., I. series Batatas].Front. Plant. Sci. 2015; 6: 251Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar]. Thus, digitisation of natural history collections is providing unprecedented information to facilitate the study of the natural world on a global scale. The digitisation of this information utilises information provided on specimen labels, and assumes they are correctly identified. Here we evaluate the accuracy of names associated with 4,500 specimens of African gingers from 40 herbaria in 21 countries. Our data show that at least 58% of the specimens had the wrong name prior to a recent taxonomic study. A similar pattern of wrongly named specimens is also shown for Dipterocarps and Ipomoea (morning glory). We also examine the number of available plant specimens worldwide. Our data demonstrate that, while the world’s collections have more than doubled since 1970, more than 50% of tropical specimens, on average, are likely to be incorrectly named. This finding has serious implications for the uncritical use of specimen data from natural history collections. Specimens of plants and animals preserved in museums are the primary source of verifiable data on the geographical and temporal distribution of organisms. Museum datasets are increasingly being uploaded to aggregated regional and global databases (e.g. the Global Biodiversity Information Facility; GBIF) for use in a wide range of analyses [1Khoury C.K. Heider B. Castañeda-Alvarez N.P. Achicanoy H.A. Sosa C.C. Miller R.E. Scotland R.W. Wood J.R.I. Rossel G. Eserman L.A. et al.Distributions, ex situ conservation priorities, and genetic resource potential of crop wild relatives of sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam., I. series Batatas].Front. Plant. Sci. 2015; 6: 251Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar]. Thus, digitisation of natural history collections is providing unprecedented information to facilitate the study of the natural world on a global scale. The digitisation of this information utilises information provided on specimen labels, and assumes they are correctly identified. Here we evaluate the accuracy of names associated with 4,500 specimens of African gingers from 40 herbaria in 21 countries. Our data show that at least 58% of the specimens had the wrong name prior to a recent taxonomic study. A similar pattern of wrongly named specimens is also shown for Dipterocarps and Ipomoea (morning glory). We also examine the number of available plant specimens worldwide. Our data demonstrate that, while the world’s collections have more than doubled since 1970, more than 50% of tropical specimens, on average, are likely to be incorrectly named. This finding has serious implications for the uncritical use of specimen data from natural history collections. Our study examined the history of all names associated with more than 4,500 specimens of Aframomum. We extracted the full determination history of each specimen from the time it was collected until the present (Figure 1A). Subsequently, we evaluated the accuracy of names associated with each specimen over time relative to the current name, as determined in the recent monograph [2Harris D.J. Wortley A.H. Monograph of Aframomum (Zingiberaceae).Syst. Bot. Monogr. 2015; (in press)Google Scholar]. Additionally, we measured the inconsistency of names associated with more than 21,000 specimens of the tree family Dipterocarpaceae, basing this work on material duplicated in different herbaria. We also assessed the percentage of synonyms and invalid names relative to the total number of names associated with 49,500 specimens of Ipomoea stored in GBIF (Supplemental Figure S1A). Finally, we documented the increase in the number of tropical herbaria and the accumulation of specimens for several taxa and geographical regions (Supplemental Figure S1B–CI-X). Figure 1B charts the complete determination history of all names for all specimens of Aframomum. Before the current monograph, more than 58% of specimens were misidentified or only identified to genus or family (indeterminate), or given a name that was a synonym of the correct name (Supplemental Table S1). Figure 1B demonstrates two important facts. First, before a taxonomic revision, a large percentage of specimens have the wrong name. Second, the number of specimens doubled between 1969 and 2000 (Figure 1B). To explore the generality of our results, we assembled a number of other datasets. From a total of 58,860 specimens of Dipterocarpaceae from nine herbaria, we identified 9,222 collections, each represented by at least two duplicate specimens held at different herbaria, making a total of 21,075 specimens. Of these collections, 29.1% had different names in different herbaria. We also investigated names in the aggregator database GBIF. For this, we measured the accuracy of names rather than specimens. Examination of the 560 Ipomoea names associated with 49,500 specimens in GBIF (Figure S1A) revealed a large proportion of the names to be nomenclatural and taxonomic synonyms (40%), invalid, erroneous or unrecognised names (16%, ‘invalid’ in Figure S1A). In addition, 11% of the specimens in GBIF were unidentified to species. The number of herbaria in the world has increased enormously during the late 20th Century (Figure S1B), doubling between 1957 and 2000.This partly reflects the enormous growth in the number of tropical plant specimens in the latter part of the 20th century, with a doubling of the number of collected specimens stored in herbaria between 1970 and 2000. This pattern can be seen in a range of taxa (Figure 1B, Figure S1CI–VI), geographical regions (Figure S1CVII–X) and in the 31 million plant specimens currently available in GBIF (Figure 1C). Therefore, our results suggest at least three reasons why so many specimens have inaccurate names. First and most important, too few taxonomic revisions across the entire geographical distribution of taxa in recent times means that the taxonomy and nomenclature of these groups are provisional and many specimens remain wrongly named, unrecognised and/or not determined for decades (Figure 1B). Second, the number of available specimens for any sizeable group is considerable (Figure 1C, Figure S1CI–VI). Third, the number of herbaria has greatly increased (Figure S1B), which means that there are too many herbaria for a given expert to visit or request loans from. Rapidly increasing numbers of specimens in increasing numbers of herbaria are not being revised because there are too few taxonomists. We consider our results are representative of other tropical collections for several reasons. First, most tropical taxa have not been monographed in the last 50 years [3Wayt Thomas W. Conservation and monographic research on the flora of Tropical America.Biodivers. Conserv. 1999; 8: 1007-1015Crossref Scopus (56) Google Scholar]. This means that the patterns we document for Aframomum can be predicted for many other taxa. In addition, many other published measures demonstrate levels of uncertainty in flowering plant taxonomy and nomenclature. These include an estimated synonymy rate of 65% [4Wortley A.H. Scotland R.W. Synonymy, sampling and seed plant numbers.Taxon. 2004; 53: 478-480Crossref Scopus (24) Google Scholar]; general recognition that most described species are poorly understood [5Heywood V. Floristics and monography-an uncertain future?.Taxon. 2001; 50: 361-380Crossref Scopus (35) Google Scholar]; and the facts that 90% of tropical species have been collected so infrequently that they are effectively unavailable for climatic modelling [6Feeley K.J. Silman M.R. The data void in modeling current and future distributions of tropical species.Global Change Biol. 2011; 17: 626-630Crossref Scopus (102) Google Scholar] and that less than 20,000 species of flowering plant have had an IUCN Red List conservation assessment [7IUCN (2014). The IUCN Red list of threatened species. Version 2014-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed 17 February 2015.Google Scholar]. The taxonomic status of only 39.4% of 951,140 published species names of angiosperms are considered by the Plant List as having been determined with ‘high confidence’ [8The plant list (2013). Version 1.1. http://www.theplantlist.org/ Accessed 1st January 2015.Google Scholar]. These reported uncertainties combined with our research provide further support for our main result that more than half of all tropical plant collections may be wrongly named — a result that could be true for temperate species as well. Our results highlight a serious disconnection between the rapid accumulation of tropical plant collections and the capacity to accurately identify those collections. Even when an economically important group such as the Dipterocarps has been recently revised [9Ashton P.S. Dipterocarpaceae. In tree flora of Sabah and Sarawak. Volume 5. Government of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia2004: 63-388Google Scholar], this knowledge is not necessarily transferred to accurate names in herbaria. We assume that the pattern we document for flowering plants in this paper is also true and possibly worse for insects, given that the number of described insects is three times that of flowering plants. The Aframomum results (Figure 1B) illustrate the dynamic and interdependent nature of species discovery, specimen accumulation and accuracy of specimen names. The reason why more than 58% of the specimens were incorrectly named is because the taxonomy and species delimitation had advanced piecemeal over a century or so using a limited sample of specimens (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures). As specimens have accumulated in an increasing number of herbaria [10Thiers B.M. Index herbariorum: A global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium, 2015Google Scholar] over the last 40 years, the traditional approach of expert taxonomists visiting relevant herbaria to identify specimens is no longer tenable. Digitised specimens, remotely accessed and integrated into species-level taxonomy, are essential to improve the names associated with the world’s natural history collections. Specimen data have huge potential to address global environmental problems, but the rate of increase in natural history collections across the world has greatly outpaced the ability to process, evaluate and name them correctly. Download .pdf (.18 MB) Help with pdf files Document S1. Supplemental Experimental Procedures, Figure S1, Table S1, and Supplemental References This research was funded by an NERC studentship and Systematics Research Fund award from the Systematics Association and Linnean Society to Z.A.G. and a Leverhulme Trust & SynTax award from BBSRC, NERC, Systematics Association and the Linnean Society to R.W.S." @default.
• W2179969133 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2179969133 creator A5006989780 @default.
• W2179969133 creator A5043553416 @default.
• W2179969133 creator A5063725538 @default.
• W2179969133 creator A5074200122 @default.
• W2179969133 creator A5080373679 @default.
• W2179969133 date "2015-11-01" @default.
• W2179969133 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2179969133 title "Widespread mistaken identity in tropical plant collections" @default.
• W2179969133 cites W196086885 @default.
• W2179969133 cites W2000470411 @default.
• W2179969133 cites W2035604568 @default.
• W2179969133 cites W2051342072 @default.
• W2179969133 cites W2104553962 @default.
• W2179969133 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.002" @default.
• W2179969133 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26583892" @default.
• W2179969133 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2179969133 type Work @default.
• W2179969133 sameAs 2179969133 @default.
• W2179969133 citedByCount "160" @default.
• W2179969133 countsByYear W21799691332016 @default.
• W2179969133 countsByYear W21799691332017 @default.
• W2179969133 countsByYear W21799691332018 @default.
• W2179969133 countsByYear W21799691332019 @default.
• W2179969133 countsByYear W21799691332020 @default.
• W2179969133 countsByYear W21799691332021 @default.
• W2179969133 countsByYear W21799691332022 @default.
• W2179969133 countsByYear W21799691332023 @default.
• W2179969133 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2179969133 hasAuthorship W2179969133A5006989780 @default.
• W2179969133 hasAuthorship W2179969133A5043553416 @default.
• W2179969133 hasAuthorship W2179969133A5063725538 @default.
• W2179969133 hasAuthorship W2179969133A5074200122 @default.
• W2179969133 hasAuthorship W2179969133A5080373679 @default.
• W2179969133 hasBestOaLocation W21799691331 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConcept C24890656 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConcept C2778355321 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConcept C53553401 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConceptScore W2179969133C121332964 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConceptScore W2179969133C24890656 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConceptScore W2179969133C2778355321 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConceptScore W2179969133C53553401 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConceptScore W2179969133C78458016 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConceptScore W2179969133C86803240 @default.
• W2179969133 hasConceptScore W2179969133C95457728 @default.
• W2179969133 hasIssue "22" @default.
• W2179969133 hasLocation W21799691331 @default.
• W2179969133 hasLocation W21799691332 @default.
• W2179969133 hasLocation W21799691333 @default.
• W2179969133 hasOpenAccess W2179969133 @default.
• W2179969133 hasPrimaryLocation W21799691331 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W1602559984 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W1828955125 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W2034736453 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W2044499740 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W2061542922 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W2096678084 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W2190176143 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W2319374022 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W3048727301 @default.
• W2179969133 hasRelatedWork W3193780050 @default.
• W2179969133 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W2179969133 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2179969133 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2179969133 magId "2179969133" @default.
• W2179969133 workType "article" @default.