Open Nomenclature in the biodiversity era

Abstract

Summary The uncertainty or the provisional status of a taxonomic identification can be expressed by a set of terms and abbreviations known as Open Nomenclature (ON) qualifiers. This approach is widely applied across biological disciplines, and a high amount of biodiversity data left in ON can be found in literature and data bases. However, there is no consensus about ON qualifiers and their meaning. The use of ON qualifiers has been reviewed in order to provide a summary and guide to current practice in zoology. Some recommendation is given to avoid inconsistencies or vagueness. A flow chart is proposed to clarify the sources of uncertainties during identification and to facilitate the application of ON qualifiers. This review provides a guide for taxonomists and ecologists currently involved in biomonitoring and biodiversity programmes, as well as for researchers dealing with biodiversity data infrastructures and tools, offering a starting point for a methodological harmonization.

Ecological Role of an Offshore Industry Artificial Structure

“…Organisms were classified to lowest taxonomic level and named according to WoRMS (Horton et al, 2019). Open nomenclature identifiers were used to indicate identifier confidence following the protocol set out for physical specimens (Sigovini et al, 2016). The same approach was used for animals observed in photographs.…”

Updated checklist and DNA barcode‐based species delimitations reveal taxonomic uncertainties among freshwater fishes from the mid‐north‐eastern Caatinga ecoregion, north‐eastern Brazil

“…If a species was only known by its type material and its identity was uncertain due to a poor diagnosis or unavailability of topotypes, it was classified as inquirenda to indicate the need for further taxonomic review to confirm its taxonomic validity, following the definition of Sigovini et al . (). Surveys of regional fish collections, recently sampled fish specimens, including topotypes (Table ), were compared with digitized images of the holotypes and additional material recorded by Starks () and Fowler (, , ), checking for updated identifications in the online database from Stanford University (SU) at the California Academy of Science (http://www.researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/collection/index.asp) and from ANSP (http://www.clade.ansp.org/ichthyology/FTIP/search.php?mode=search&scope=Collection&contains=&contains_loc=&tbl=Specimens&Submit=Search+ANSP+Fish+Collection&gallery=ImageGallery).…”

“…All species listed herein correspond to at least one voucher in the following institutions: The Academy of Natural Sciences (ANSP), U.S.A., Museu Nacional da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ), Brazil, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo (MZUSP), Brazil, Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB), Brazil and Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Brazil. If a species was only known by its type material and its identity was uncertain due to a poor diagnosis or unavailability of topotypes, it was classified as inquirenda to indicate the need for further taxonomic review to confirm its taxonomic validity, following the definition of Sigovini et al (2016). Surveys of regional fish collections, recently sampled fish specimens, including topotypes (Table 1), were compared with digitized images of the holotypes and additional material recorded by Starks (1913) and Fowler (1915Fowler ( , 1941Fowler ( , 1942 This study is part of a regional collaborative initiative to study the diversity and conservation of freshwater fishes from north-eastern Brazil, including the MNCE ichthyofauna (Costa et al, 2017a;Costa et al, 2017b;Lima et al 2017;Lira et al, 2015;Paiva et al, 2014;Ramos et al, 2013Ramos et al, , 2016Silva et al, 2014Silva et al, , 2017Teixeira et al, 2017;Zawadzki et al, 2017).…”

An enhanced target-enrichment bait set for Hexacorallia provides phylogenomic resolution of the staghorn corals (Acroporidae) and close relatives

“…Acroporid specimens were identified by comparing skeletons to the ‘type’ material and the original descriptions of all nominal species. Uncertainties in the identifications are indicated by the use of a series of open nomenclature (ON) qualifiers (Bengtson, 1988; Sigovini et al, 2016) which provides flexibility to assign specimens to nominal species with varying degrees of certainty. Specimens with skeletons that closely resemble the original type specimen and were collected from the type location (e.g.…”