Taxonomic punchlines: metadata in biology

McClellan, P.H.

doi:10.1080/08912963.2019.1618293

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like it or not, botanical, mycological, phycological and zoological nomenclature contains many names of taxa derived from names of historical persons, and many of those people were definitely not angels (see some examples in Jóźwiak & al., 2015; Heard, 2020; McClellan, 2021; etc.). But who should decide which person to erase from biological nomenclature?…”

Section: Eponymous (Eponymic) Names and Epithets: Commemorating “Bad ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

If “Rhodes‐” must fall, who shall fall next?

Mosyakin

2022

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smith and Figueiredo, in their recent articles, raised important issues of getting rid of colonial legacy in botanical nomenclature. Some other politically motivated claims and proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) have also been published or discussed by some other authors. In particular, Smith and Figueiredo expressed their opinion that "a proposal to amend to the Code, replacing epithets with the root 'rhodes-', where Cecil John Rhodes, or any landmark named for him is commemorated, should be considered". However, Rhodes is not the only controversial person whose name is currently associated with names of taxa. Here I consider several other cases of people of the past who were or are also sometimes treated, at least by some, as racists, colonialists, imperialists, war criminals, etc. Also, I discuss, in the context of Art. 51 of the ICN, a more general issue of names and epithets that are or may be considered offensive, inappropriate, or unacceptable by some people or groups of people. The nomenclature of organisms governed by nomenclatural codes is the crucially important tool in taxonomy and all sciences and fields of activity relying on or referring to it. Nomenclature also reflects the rich and fascinating history of scientific exploration of the living world. That history contains some unpleasant or even tragic events, episodes and periods, and not all people commemorated in names of organisms were free of sins by our modern standards. Science cannot and should not, however, employ politically motivated censorship and totalitarian cleansing of scientific history, and of the biological nomenclature that reflects that history. Nomenclature of plants, algae, and fungi shall not be transformed into a battleground for politically motivated campaigns. Only some exceptions are possible, but they should be dealt with the proper respect to the Code and to the centuries of taxonomic and nomenclatural traditions.

show abstract

Section: Eponymous (Eponymic) Names and Epithets: Commemorating “Bad ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

If “Rhodes‐” must fall, who shall fall next?

Mosyakin

2022

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The heterogeneous taxonomic data themselves also need to be described with contextual or methodological information. This might include the device, methods, and conditions used for photographic, tomographic, or sound recording ( Roch et al 2016 ; Köhler et al 2017 ), laboratory methods for histological staining or molecular sequencing, or even the sociological context of the data collection ( McClellan 2019 )—these constitute what one might consider “metadata of taxonomic data” (not the same as specimen metadata). Ideally, these data and metadata must all be accommodated in the archiving process.…”

Section: Properties and Diversity Of Alpha-taxonomic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Repositories for Taxonomic Data: Where We Are and What is Missing

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural history collections are leading successful large-scale projects of specimen digitization (images, metadata, DNA barcodes), thereby transforming taxonomy into a big data science. Yet, little effort has been directed towards safeguarding and subsequently mobilizing the considerable amount of original data generated during the process of naming 15,000–20,000 species every year. From the perspective of alpha-taxonomists, we provide a review of the properties and diversity of taxonomic data, assess their volume and use, and establish criteria for optimizing data repositories. We surveyed 4113 alpha-taxonomic studies in representative journals for 2002, 2010, and 2018, and found an increasing yet comparatively limited use of molecular data in species diagnosis and description. In 2018, of the 2661 papers published in specialized taxonomic journals, molecular data were widely used in mycology (94%), regularly in vertebrates (53%), but rarely in botany (15%) and entomology (10%). Images play an important role in taxonomic research on all taxa, with photographs used in >80% and drawings in 58% of the surveyed papers. The use of omics (high-throughput) approaches or 3D documentation is still rare. Improved archiving strategies for metabarcoding consensus reads, genome and transcriptome assemblies, and chemical and metabolomic data could help to mobilize the wealth of high-throughput data for alpha-taxonomy. Because long-term—ideally perpetual—data storage is of particular importance for taxonomy, energy footprint reduction via less storage-demanding formats is a priority if their information content suffices for the purpose of taxonomic studies. Whereas taxonomic assignments are quasifacts for most biological disciplines, they remain hypotheses pertaining to evolutionary relatedness of individuals for alpha-taxonomy. For this reason, an improved reuse of taxonomic data, including machine-learning-based species identification and delimitation pipelines, requires a cyberspecimen approach—linking data via unique specimen identifiers, and thereby making them findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable for taxonomic research. This poses both qualitative challenges to adapt the existing infrastructure of data centers to a specimen-centered concept and quantitative challenges to host and connect an estimated $ \le $2 million images produced per year by alpha-taxonomic studies, plus many millions of images from digitization campaigns. Of the 30,000–40,000 taxonomists globally, many are thought to be nonprofessionals, and capturing the data for online storage and reuse therefore requires low-complexity submission workflows and cost-free repository use. Expert taxonomists are the main stakeholders able to identify and formalize the needs of the discipline; their expertise is needed to implement the envisioned virtual collections of cyberspecimens. [Big data; cyberspecimen; new species; omics; repositories; specimen identifier; taxonomy; taxonomic data.]

show abstract

“…As scientists, it is a best practice to avert unnecessary and easily avoided conflict that can affect perceptions or associations with our work. Examining the etymology of nomenclature in science can provide a general understanding of names by documenting a history or background of meanings associated with their roots (often Latin or Greek roots ;Dodd Jr. et al, 2016), as well as provide insight to the mindsets and personalities of the scientists involved by elucidating their choices for whimsical names (Cameron, 1974;McClellan 2019). Herein, we use the etymology of the term Judas to illuminate the path that led to the choice of individuals to use the term Judas during the course of their scientific investigations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying negative sentiment polarity in the Judas technique

Fitzgerald

Josimovich

Robinson

et al. 2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of conservation science and management, the Judas technique refers to outfitting an animal (a Judas animal) with a radio transmitter or other identifier so that its movements can be tracked to locate conspecifics. Although this term is commonly used, some consider it offensive due to historical associations of the word Judas with anti-Semitic sentiments. Thus, the term has a negative sentiment polarity (i.e., the assertion that words can have positive, negative, or neutral connotations). We investigated the etymology of the Judas term in peer-reviewed scientific literature to outline its contextual introduction and use. Prior to the term being co-opted by conservation scientists Judas [animal] was a common term in the livestock industry to describe animals used to lead herds to slaughter. Subsequently, the term has been published and promulgated through conservationrelated research and the literature. Due to a negative sentiment polarity linked to this term, especially among members of the public, alternative nomenclature may be preferred to increase objective and dispassionate scientific communication.

show abstract

Taxonomic punchlines: metadata in biology

Cited by 3 publications

References 40 publications

If “Rhodes‐” must fall, who shall fall next?

If “Rhodes‐” must fall, who shall fall next?

Repositories for Taxonomic Data: Where We Are and What is Missing

Identifying negative sentiment polarity in the Judas technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About