ArticlePDF Available


We wish that B. A. Minteer et al. 's claim that field biologists routinely collect voucher specimens were true [“Avoiding (re)extinction,” Perspectives, 18 April, p. [260][1]]. Any museum curator will tell you that it is a constant struggle to convince them to do so, despite countless
23 MAY 2014 • VOL 344 ISSUE 6186 815SCIENCE
and understood. Specimens from such
collections and their associated data are
essential for making informed decisions
about management and conservation now
and in the future. As a community, we
advocate the utmost responsibility and
care while making scientific collections
(4). Furthermore, given increasing rates
of habitat loss and global change, we
believe that responsibly collecting voucher
specimens and associated data and openly
sharing this knowledge (for example,
through GBIF, iDigBio, and VertNet) are
more necessary today than ever before.
L. A. Rocha,1* A. Aleixo,2 G. Allen,3 F.
Almeda,1 C. C. Baldwin,4 M. V. L. Barclay,5
J. M. Bates,6 A. M. Bauer,7 F. Benzoni,8
C. M. Berns,9 M. L. Berumen,10 D. C.
Blackburn,1 S. Blum,1 F. Bolaños,11 R.
C. K. Bowie,12 R. Britz,5 R. M. Brown,13
C. D. Cadena,14 K. Carpenter,15 L. M.
Ceríaco,16 P. Chakrabarty,17 G. Chaves,11
J. H. Choat,18 K. D. Clements,19 B. B.
Collette,20 A. Collins,20 J. Coyne,21 J.
Cracraft,22 T. Daniel,1 M. R. de Carvalho,23
K. de Queiroz,4 F. Di Dario,24 R. Drewes,1
J. P. Dumbacher,1 A. Engilis Jr.,25 M.
V. Erdmann,26 W. Eschmeyer,1 C. R.
Feldman,27 B. L. Fisher,1 J. Fjeldså,28 P.
W. Fritsch,1 J. F uchs, 29 A. Getahun,30 A.
Gill,31 M. Gomon,32 T. Gosliner,1 G. R.
Graves,4 C. E. Gr iswold,1 R. Guralnick,33
K. Hartel,34 K. M. Helgen,4 H. Ho, 35 D. T.
Iskandar,36 T. Iwamoto,1 Z. Jaafar,4,37 H.
F. James,4 D. Johnson,4 D. Kavanaugh,1
N. Knowlton,4 E. Lacey,12 H. K. Larson,38
P. La st ,39 J. M. Leis,40 H. Lessios,41 J.
Liebherr,42 M. Lowman,1 D. L. Mahler,25
V. Mamonekene,43 K. Matsuura,44 G. C.
Maye r,45 H. Mays Jr.,46 J. McCosker,1
R. W. McDiarmid,4 J. M cGuir e,12 M. J.
Miller,41 R. Mooi,1 R. D. Mooi,47 C. Moritz,48
P. My er s, 49 M. W. Nachman,12 R. A.
Nussbaum,49 D. Ó Foighil,49 L. R. Parenti,4
J. F. Parham,50 E. Pau l,51 G. Paulay,52 J.
Pérez-Emán,53 A. Pérez-Matus,54 S. Poe,55
J. Pogonoski,39 D. L. Rabosky,49 J. E .
Randall,56 J. D. Reimer,57 D. R. Robertson,41
M.-O. Rödel,58 M. T. Rodrigues,23 P.
Roopnarine,1 L. Rüber,59 M. J. Ryan,55 F.
Sheldon,17 G. Shinohara,44 A. Short,13 W.
B. Simison,1 W. F. Smith-Vaniz,52 V. G.
Springer, 4 M. Stiassny,22 J. G. Tello,22,60 C.
W. Thompson,49 T. Trn sk i,61 P. Tu ck e r,49
T. Valqui,62 M. Vecchione,20 E. Verheyen,63
P. C. Wainwright,25 T. A. Wheeler,64 W.
T. White,39 K. Will,12 J. T. Williams,4 G.
Williams,1 E. O. Wilson,34 K. Wi nke r,65 R.
Winterbottom,66 C. C. Witt55
1California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA
94118, USA. 2Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém,
PA, 66040 -170, Brazil. 3Western Australian Museum,
Perth, WA, 6986, Aust ralia. 4Smithsonian Institution,
Washin gton, DC 20 560, USA. 5Natural History
Museu m, London, SW 7 5BD, UK. 6Field Museum of
Natural History, Chicago, IL 60605, USA. 7Villanova
University, Villanova, PA 19085, USA. 8University of
Milano-Bicocca, Milan, 20126, Italy. 9Utica College,
Utica , NY 13502, USA. 10 King Abdullah University
of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955, Saudi
Arabia. 11Universidad de Costa Rica, San José,
11501-2060, Costa Rica. 12University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720–3161, USA. 13University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA. 14Universidad de
los Andes, Bogotá, 4976, Colombia. 15Old Dominion
University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA. 16Museu Nacional
de História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon, 7005-
638, Portugal. 17Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, LA 7 0803, USA. 18James Cook University,
Townsville, 4811, Australia. 19University of Auckland,
Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. 20NOAA Systematics
Labo ratory, Washing ton, DC 200 13, USA. 21University
of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. 22American
Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024,
USA. 23Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP,
05508-090, Brazil. 24Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro, Macaé, RJ, 27965-045, Brazil. 25University
of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. 26Conservation
International, Denpasar, Bali, 80235, Indonesia.
27University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557–0314, USA.
28Natural History Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen,
DK-2100, Denmark. 29Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, 75005, France. 30Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa, 1176, Ethiopia. 31University
of Sydn ey, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Austra lia. 32Museum
Victoria, Melbourne, 3001, VIC, Australia. 33University
of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309–0334, USA.
34Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
35National Museum of Marine Biology & Aquarium,
Pingtung, 944, Taiwan. 36Institut Teknologi Bandung,
Bandung, 40132, Indonesia. 37National University
of Singapore, 117543, Singapore. 38Museum and Art
Gallery of the Northern Territory, Darwin, 0820, NT,
Australia. 39CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research,
Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia. 40Australian Museum,
Sydney, NSW, 2010, Aus tralia. 41Smithsonian
Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, 0843-03092,
Panamá. 42Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
43Université Marien Ngouabi, Brazzaville, B.P. 69,
Republic of Congo. 44National Museum of Nature
and Science, Tsukuba, 305-0005, Japan. 45University
of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, WI 53141–2000,
USA. 46Cincinnati Museum Center, Cincinnati, OH
45203, US A. 47The Manitoba Museum, Winnipeg,
MB, R3B 0N2, Canada. 48Australian National
University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia.
49University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1079,
USA. 50California State University, Fullerton, CA
92831, USA. 51The Ornithological Council, Chevy
Chase, MD 20815, USA. 52University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. 53Universidad Central
de Venezuela, Caracas, 1041, Venezuela. 54Ponti cia
Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 6513677,
Chile. 55University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
NM 871 31–0001, USA . 56Bernice P. Bishop
Museum, Honolulu, HI 96817, USA. 57University
of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, 903-0213, Japan.
58Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, 10115, Germany.
59Naturhistorisches Museum der Burgergemeinde
Bern, Bern, CH-3005, Switzerland. 60Long Island
University, Brooklyn, NY 11201–8423, USA.
61Auckland Museum, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
62Centro de Ornitologia y Biodiversidad, Lima, 33,
Peru. 63Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences,
Brussels, 1000, Belgium. 64McGill University,
Montreal, QC, H9X 3V9, Canada. 65University of
Alas ka Museum , Fairb anks, AK 99775, US A. 66Royal
Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON, M5S 2C6, Canada.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: LRocha@
1. E. Fulle r, The Great Auk (H. N. Abrams, New York, 1999).
2. J. P. Hume, M. Walte rs, Extinction in Birds (Bloomsbury,
London, 2012).
3. N. J. Coll ar, Bird Cons. Int. 10, 1 (2000).
4. K. Winker et al., Auk 127, 690 (2010).
5. T. L. Cheng , S. M. Rovit o, D. B. Wake, V. T. Vredenbu rg, Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 9502 (2011).
6. R. D. Porter, S. N. Wi emeyer, Science 165, 199 (1969).
7. J. L. Gardne r, A. Peters, M. R. K earney, L . Joseph , R.
Heinsohn, Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 285 (2011).
8. Y. Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., Fish Fish. 14, 119 (2013).
9. K. Bi et al., Mol. Ecol. 22, 6018 (2013).
10. M. Clave ro, E. Garc ia-B ertho u, Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 110
11. B. Col len, N . Pettorel li, J. E. M. B ailli e, S. M. Dur ant, Eds .,
Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation: Bridging the
Gap between Global Commitment and Local Action
(Wiley, Cambridge, UK, 2013).
12. M.V. Erdmann, in Still counting…: Biodiversity Exploration
for Conservation – the first 20 years of the Rapid
Assessment Program, L. E. Alonso, J. L. D eichm ann, S. A.
McKenna, P. Naskrecki, S. J. Richards, Eds. (Conservation
International, Arlington, VA, 2010).
13. C. Mo ra, D. P. Tit tenso r, S. Adl, A. G. B. Sim pson, B . Worm,
PLOS B iol. 9, e1001127 (2011).
Specimen collection:
Plan for the future
WE WISH THAT B. A. Minteer et al.’s claim
that field biologists routinely collect
voucher specimens were true [“Avoiding
(re)extinction,” Perspectives, 18 April,
p. 260]. Any museum curator will tell you
that it is a constant struggle to convince
them to do so, despite countless publications
rendered unreliable because it is impossible
to verify species’ identities. The necessity
of voucher specimens varies by taxon and
region, but in general, it is good practice to
deposit them and as much data as possible,
including DNA and photos in life.
We certainly do not wish to see any
species driven to extinction by overcollect-
ing, but submit that this is rare and more
associated with commercial or ardent,
recreational overcollecting than sensible
scientific vouchering (1, 2). If the kill of
a single individual increases the extinc-
tion risk of a species, then it is well below
viable population size and already among
the “walking dead.
Dawkins’ description of evolution
as improbability on a colossal scale is
nowhere more evident than in morphol-
ogy. Whether or not a species survives,
museum specimens represent a window
on many of its most remarkable novel-
ties. Molecular data, although helpful in
identifications, is neither a panacea nor
surrogate for museum specimens, espe-
cially when it comes to newly discovered
species. Describing a new species without
depositing a holotype when a specimen
can be preserved borders on taxonomic
malpractice. Even given good photographs
and a tissue sample, there are reasons to
collect one or more complete specimens.
We do not know what morphological
characters will prove important in future
studies of species status, phylogenetic
Published by AAAS
816 23 MAY 2014 • VOL 344 ISSUE 6186 SCIENCE
relationships, or genetic or epigenetic
variation. As taxonomists and ecologists,
we do not want to know only that a spe-
cies exists but to understand what makes
it unique compared to related species.
Given the importance of the phenotype-
environment interface in natural selection,
we potentially sacrifice the most impor-
tant things to know about a species when
we forego more than superficial evidence
of anatomical details.
With millions of species threatened by
extinction, it would be tragic were we left
with no more than a few photographs and
sequences as evidence they were once here.
Given well-preserved specimens, we can
continue to marvel at adaptations, discover
models for biomimicry, refine theories of
character transformations, and verify the
state of internal or external structures
discovered in related species. As the last
generation with the opportunity to explore,
discover, and document millions of species
evolved over billions of years, we should
not be so arrogant as to assume what sci-
ence of the future may want or need.
Frank-T. Krell1 and Quentin D. Wheeler2
1Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature
& Science, Denver, CO 80205, USA. 2College
of Environmental Science and Forestry, State
University of New York, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
1. D. A. Norton et al., Tax on 43, 181 (1994).
2. K. Winker et al., Auk 127, 690 (2010).
THE PURPOSE OF OUR Perspective was
to raise awareness about an issue that
will increase in prevalence as the global
biodiversity crisis unfolds: Absent a
reliable estimate of population size, is
it prudent and ethical to collect a newly
observed individual of a species so rare it
was thought extinct [e.g., (1)]? We sup-
port the work of natural history museums,
and nowhere in our discussion did we
argue that responsible collecting should
be halted. Specimen collections provide
invaluable contributions to many dis-
ciplines beyond taxonomy [e.g., (2, 3)];
moreover, we continue to collect ourselves
(J.P.C. and R.P.). We repeatedly emphasized
that we were targeting the specific context
of small and vulnerable populations only.
We would like to believe that we live in
Rocha et al.’s world in which the respon-
sible collector follows every regulation and
ethical code (where these exist). Our own
experience and research, however, paint
a more complicated picture. A culture of
responsible scientific practice is harder to
establish than just following regulatory
prescriptions and ethical injunctions (4).
Rocha et al. also introduce a red herring by
raising the distinction between individual-
and population- or species-level concern
in conservation, which we understand
and have discussed elsewhere (5). It is
obvious that our Perspective concerns
survival of populations and species; the
individual specimen becomes important in
our argument because of the small size of
populations, especially when (as in the case
of rediscovered amphibian populations)
such individuals are found coexisting with
the lethal pathogen that likely greatly
reduced their numbers (6).
Nowhere do we claim that scientific
collection is a leading driver of extinction.
We are aware of the major threats posed by
habitat loss and fragmentation, commer-
cial use, exotic species, toxins, infectious
diseases, and climate change (7). Collectors
may have taken the last Auks, but the spe-
cies was pushed to the brink of extinction
by centuries of human overexploitation.
Still, the point remains that without a reli-
able estimate of population size, collecting
individuals from a small, isolated popula-
tion can pose an extinction risk. We believe
that it is important to highlight this risk,
and to suggest how to mitigate the threat.
We are troubled by Krell and Wheeler’s
argument, which seems to suggest that col-
lecting in vulnerable populations is justified
as a way to preserve the present for a future
in which many species will be extinct. Even
small populations seem eligible for collect-
ing based on their claim that such species
are already among the “walking dead.” If
collecting a specimen increases extinction
risk, however, then it is a threat to biodi-
versity and should be avoided. Krell and
Wheeler object to the “arrogance” of assum-
ing “what science of the future may want
or need,” but we find more hubris in their
suggestion that taxonomists and ecologists
should be unconcerned about driving the
final nail in a species’ coffin.
Cultural change in science can be dif-
ficult. Long-established techniques are
questioned as alternatives arise. Specimen
collection is no exception, especially in
light of growing concerns about our enter-
ing a sixth mass extinction event (8), and
we encourage more research into new
ways to document Earth’s biodiversity.
A precautionary approach to scientific
collection will help ensure that we do not
put additional pressure on already vulner-
able populations as we seek to identify
organisms new to science, or to confirm a
species’ welcome return from the dead.
Ben A. Minteer,1* James P. Collins,1
Robert Puschendorf 2
1School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. 2School of Biological
Sciences, Plymouth University, Drake Circus,
Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK.
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
1. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Craugastor
fleischmanni ( /56603/0).
2. C. Moritz et al., Science 322, 261 (2008).
3. R. Puschendorf, F. Bolaños, G. Chaves, Biol. Conserv. 132,
136 (2006).
4. B. A. Mint eer, J. P. Col lins, Sci. Eng. Ethics 14, 483 (2008).
5. B. A. Min teer, J. P. Collins, I LAR J. 54, 41 (2013).
6. M. J. Ryan, F. Bol años, G. C haves, Sci ence (2010);
published online:
59 9 7/1 2 72 /r e pl y.
7. J. P. Collin s, M. Cr ump, Extinction in Our Times: Global
Amphibian Decline (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2009).
8. E. Kolb ert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History
(Henry Holt, New York, 2014).
Editor’s note: We are simplifying our proce-
dure for making corrections to articles pub-
lished in Science, while maintaining transpar-
ency for our readers. The full text and PDF
les will be corrected online as soon as pos-
sible, with an explanation at the end of the
full text and, for corrections involving data or
metadata, in an accompanying online Erra-
tum. A notifi cation that an Erratum has been
published online will appear in a subsequent
print issue in this space.
Erratum for the Research Article: “Total
Synthesis of a Functional Designer Eukaryotic
Chromosome” by N. Annaluru et al., Science
344, 1254596 (2014). Published online 18 April;
Erratum for the Report: “Wild Pollinators
Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of
Honey Bee Abundance” by L. A. Garibaldi et al.,
Science 344, 1255213 (2014). Published online 2
May; 10.1126/science.1255213
Erratum for the News & Analysis: “Designer
Microbes Expand Life’s Genetic Alphabet”
by R. F. Service, Science 344, 1255780
(2014). Published online 16 May; 10.1126/
Erratum for the Report: “I-Love-Q: Unexpected
Universal Relations for Neutron Stars and
Quark Stars” by K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Science
344, 1250349 (2014). Published online 23 May;
Erratum for the Report: “Mapping the
Cellular Response to Small Molecules Using
Chemogenomic Fitness Signatures” by A. Y. Lee
et al., Science 344, 1255771 (2014). Published
online 23 May; 10.1126/science.1255771
Published by AAAS
... The case has never been made for insects, and Marshall and Evenhuis (2015) themselves agree that such a case would be difficult to make. Whether the cases illustrated by Minteer et al. (2014) even represent the issue was called into question by Krell and Wheeler (2014), but this is beyond the scope of our paper. Löbl et al. (2016) suggested publishing information about the existence of a new species without naming it. ...
Full-text available
A heated debate on whether a new species should be described without a physical specimen, i.e., by designating a photographed specimen to serve as a holotype, has been ongoing for a long time. Herewith, without nomenclatural actions, a new species of the Batrachidein pygmy grasshoppers belonging to the genus Scaria Bolívar, 1887 is identified from the Andean rainforest in Peru. This species is clearly different from all its congeners by morphology and coloration. Two individuals of this peculiar species are known only from the photographs found on iNaturalist. The species has not been observed since 2008 when the photographs were taken. A short historical overview of the topic is given, illustrating the pros and cons of photograph-based species description. The concepts of names, holotypes, research effort, and conservation are discussed and related to the problem at hand. The current state of the taxonomic community's beliefs regarding this issue is reflected by the authors' three unsuccessful attempts to name this new species.
... In many cases, these facilities are in a serious danger of permanent shutdown. Problems due to the lack of funding including basic house-keeping budget, potential employment of new taxonomists, and bureaucracy in the processing of collecting permits are well discussed by Britz et al. (2020), whereas planning, usage, datamining and organization future specimen collections is found in Krell and Wheeler (2014). ...
Full-text available
As taxonomists who have embraced the amalgamation of traditional and modern research techniques, we have witnessed dramatic changes and the gradual disappearance of one of the oldest disciplines in biological science, that is, taxonomy and the associated application of nomenclature. In this note we address some of the causes and effects behind reductionism and the ensuing curricular changes affecting research, education and training in taxonomy in major academic institutions. Over the last few years scientific specialization has had an unprecedent impact in society enabling biological research progress primarily due to the implementation of technological innovation, raising employment and economic development. As a result, the resolutions in scientific and educational institutions have been adjusted accordingly. The field of botany, in particular, has undergone significant changes. Botany has been influenced by shifts in the approach to the scientific method, to the extent that this traditional field of studies has been increasingly replaced in universities and research institutes by broader meaning labels, such as of “Plant Biology” and “Integrative Biology.” In fact, several claims regarding the vanishing of taxonomic research have been made, from the lack of funding (Ebach and Holdrege 2005; Guerra García et al. 2008), training of new personnel (Drew 2011; Britz et al. 2020), denying recognition (Dar et al. 2012; Wheeler 2014), and reductionism (Crisci 2008; Crisci et al. 2020).
... It is very important, because museums with collections and data they represent provide entrance into the history and inform about the present (Cavarzere et al. 2017;Arbelaez-Cortes et al. 2017;Lacey et al. 2017;Hope et al. 2018;Dowler 2019). Moreover, they can help to predict the future of natural habitats and human-altered environments and then predict changes in biodiversity (Kress, 2014;Minteer et al. 2014;Rocha et al. 2014;Krell & Wheeler 2014;Holmes et al. 2016). Kemp et al. (2015) showed that three-quarters of newly named mammalian species are already part of natural history collections. ...
Full-text available
The Natural History Department of the Šariš Museum, Bardejov, Slovakia, was established in 1956 by PhMr. Tibor Weisz. The mammal collection consists of more than 5 000 specimens of 67 mammal species of the Slovakian fauna. The museum mostly represents the fauna of northeastern Slovakia, i.e. the transition area between the Eastern and Western Carpathians and adjacent to the northernmost part of the Pannonian Basin. In the paper, data are presented on hare and rabbit specimens deposited in the collection of the Šariš Museum in Bardejov (SMB), Slovakia. In total, data were evaluated on 27 specimens of the brown hare (Lepus europaeus) from twelve sites of Slovakia (n = 19), one site of Czech Silesia (n = 1), and from unknow localities (n = 7). Individuals were acquired in 1958-1971, but mainly in 1965-1966 (n = 19, 70.4 %). Among them, one specimen had signs of "albinism" and was collected from Zlaté village. The collection also includes a skull of a brown hare with anomalous dentition. Similarly, two skulls of the mountain hare (Lepus timidus) obtained from the Danish preparator N. H. Gustaffson were evaluated. Three rabit specimens were also found in the collection, including two skulls of the wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and a skin-mount and skull of a domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus forma domestica). The collection contains 20 adult specimens (15 males and 5 females) with body size values recorded in the protocol cards. Mammalogical collections in the Šariš Museum in Bardejov represent an outstanding scientific time capsule. All stored specimens in this particular and other similar collections, including those in local museums, will largely be needed and used as datasets by ecologists and conservationists in the future. It is necesary to preserve the collections, to computerise and digitise their inventories and the wealth of information they represent. At present, most of these data are not accessible electronically or online. Therefore, such collections, including that in Bardejov, must be sustained for a long term, which will require increased funding for their physical and scientific preservation.
... We have to remember that a new species can be discovered either in nature or in an herbarium. In fact, herbaria represent the physical place where plant taxonomic information is deposited, and where past, recent and current botanical collections are preserved, particularly type specimens, and where taxonomists understand what makes a species unique and comparable to other related species (Krell & Wheeler 2014). ...
Full-text available
Currently in Panama, as in other parts of the world, there is little interest in taxonomy, both at the educational and research levels. In order to increase awareness and research interest in plant taxonomy amongst botany majors, we involved a cohort of college-level students of the University of Panama's Biology School in the process of naming a yet-to-be described species of Anthurium (Araceae), engaging them in all aspects of taxonomy including the process of proposing a new species to the scientific community. With their help, we hereby describe a new species we named Anthurium oistophyllum, with descriptions and illustrations based upon photographs of the vegetative and reproductive structures taken from live material.
... A todo momento, hipóteses são testadas, corroboradas ou refutadas e as coleções científicas são recursos particularmente poderosos para essa dinâmica, pois oferecem aos cientistas dados em escalas espaciais, temporais e taxonômicas, documentando assim, mudanças no ambiente 21 . Além disso, nós não sabemos quais características morfológicas e moleculares serão importantes no futuro 22 , nem quais ferramentas tecnológicas serão desenvolvidas. Desta forma, à medida que vamos alterando mais e mais o planeta, a importância da coleta contínua de espécimes e a manutenção das coleções científicas se mostram ainda mais importantes, e a sociedade de posse do entendimento dessa importância precisa cobrar de seus governantes a destinação de recursos para esse fim e todas as pesquisas ligadas a elas. ...
Full-text available
Neste livro nós reunimos informações sobre adultos e imaturos de borboletas ocorrentes no município de Joaçaba, localizado no meio-oeste de Santa Catarina. As espécies registradas aqui se distribuem também por grande parte da Floresta Atlântica, outras ainda adentrando biomas como o Cerrado e a Amazônia. Esta obra contém 2.273 imagens correspondentes a 447 espécies. Destas, há imagens de 446 espécies preparadas com as asas esticadas, 178 espécies registradas no ambiente natural e 89 espécies com imagens dos imaturos. Adicionalmente, há informações a respeito dos meses de ocorrência, de alguns hábitos e caracterização morfológica dos adultos e imaturos, além do registro de plantas hospedeiras. Desta forma, associando imagens desses belíssimos insetos à descrição de hábitos e demais características das espécies, nós objetivamos auxiliar na divulgação de informações científicas também ao público leigo, buscando atrair uma maior parcela da sociedade ao conhecimento da grande diversidade de insetos neotropicais.
... It is important to mention that approaches that promote taking the publication of images from databases and photo-based descriptions as a replacement to species descriptions based on type specimen(s) are misguided (Marshall & Evenhuis 2015). Such approaches functionally dismiss the most important biological empirical evidence, the specimen(s) itself (Amorim et al. 2016;Krell & Wheeler 2014). Biodiversity inventory websites must assist in the publication of taxonomic descriptive work abiding the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature rules (ICZN 1999). ...
Spider community inventories have relatively well-established standardized collecting protocols. Such protocols set rules for the orderly acquisition of samples to estimate community parameters and to establish comparisons between areas. These methods have been tested worldwide, providing useful data for inventory planning and optimal sampling allocation efforts. The taxonomic counterpart of biodiversity inventories has received considerably less attention. Species lists and their relative abundances are the only link between the community parameters resulting from a biotic inventory and the biology of the species that live there. However, this connection is lost or speculative at best for species only partially identified (e. g., to genus but not to species). This link is particularly important for diverse tropical regions were many taxa are undescribed or little known such as spiders. One approach to this problem has been the development of biodiversity inventory websites that document the morphology of the species with digital images organized as standard views. Their main contributions are the dissemination of phenotypic data for species difficult to identify or new with the assignment of species codes, allowing species comparisons between areas regardless of their taxonomic status. The present paper describes a protocol to produce these websites almost automatically. This protocol was successfully applied to 237 species from a tropical primary forest in Mexico. The time and infrastructure required for the documentation of these species are discussed. Taxonomic information in terms of identification challenges, possible new species, and potential nomenclatural issues is described. In addition, the conventional community parameters (e. g., inventory completeness, species richness estimations, sampling intensity) are also calculated and compared through time and between methods. An optimized version for sampling allocation effort per season is presented and compared with protocols optimized for other tropical forests.
... Sin embargo, los taxónomos, caso de Kress (2014), opinan que describir una nueva especie sin depositar un holotipo es una mala práctica, si bien con excepciones (Lindenmayer & Sche- ele, 2017) como ciertos vertebrados, invertebrados pelágicos o especies ubicadas en enclaves de difícil acceso. De hecho, este tema, en los últimos años, se ha convertido en foco de discusión para muchos autores (Dubois & Nemésio, 2007;Minteer et al., 2014;Krell & Wheeler, 2014;Marshall & Evenhuis, 2015;Santos et al. 2016) (ver Cianferoni & Berto- lozzi, 2016, así como Chaladze (2017); Ceríaco, Gutiérrez, Dubois et al., 2016;Donegan (2008); Faúndez (2017); Gutiérrez & Pine (2017) y Zhang (2017). ...
... On the loss of the type series. Several issues have been brought up regarding the description of species based solely on photographic records (Minteer et al. 2014;Rocha et al. 2014;Krell & Wheeler 2014;Amorim et al. 2016). The species described in this paper does not fit in the debates presented in literature about that controversy (Marshall & Evenhuis 2015;Amorim et al. 2016), since the type series was destroyed while the paper was under preparation and the authors did not have the chance to send vouchers to other institutions, as it was intended for right after this publication. ...
Chaenotetrastichus neotropicalis sp. nov. from the Atlantic Forest, Brazil, is described and illustrated. This new species is associated with a species of the pompilid wasp Auplopus Spinola (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae) and it represents the first record of the genus for the Neotropics. A key for the extant species of the genus Chaenotetrastichus Graham is also presented.
Natural history collections are invaluable repositories of biological information that provide an unrivaled record of Earth's biodiversity. Museum genomics—genomics research using traditional museum and cryogenic collections and the infrastructure supporting these investigations—has particularly enhanced research in ecology and evolutionary biology, the study of extinct organisms, and the impact of anthropogenic activity on biodiversity. However, leveraging genomics in biological collections has exposed challenges, such as digitizing, integrating, and sharing collections data; updating practices to ensure broadly optimal data extraction from existing and new collections; and modernizing collections practices, infrastructure, and policies to ensure fair, sustainable, and genomically manifold uses of museum collections by increasingly diverse stakeholders. Museum genomics collections are poised to address these challenges and, with increasingly sensitive genomics approaches, will catalyze a future era of reproducibility, innovation, and insight made possible through integrating museum and genome sciences. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Genetics, Volume 55 is November 2021. Please see for revised estimates.
Full-text available
In the Report “Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance,” it is possible that some pollinator species were misidentified in lowland coffee, Uganda, one of the 41 studies included in the synthesis. This potential misidentification does not invalidate the analyses, conclusions, or the wider implications of the study. The results are not sensitive to which of the 41 studies are included, because the authors performed several analyses with different subsets of studies, and they all showed similar results. Furthermore, the mixed-effect models allow for individual variation in trends for each study. The results of these analyses depend on the consistency of patterns across all of the 41 studies sampled in 600 fields, and are not influenced to any large extent by a particular pattern occurring in just one study. The main analysis compared the flower visitation rate of honey bees versus all wild insect species combined. This analysis should be largely insensitive to identification concerns because honey bees were readily separable from other species in all studies. Indeed, the analyses performed in the synthesis do not make use of the species names of the wild insects (see database S1).
Full-text available
Abstract Rapid advances in DNA synthesis techniques have made it possible to engineer viruses, biochemical pathways and assemble bacterial genomes. Here, we report the synthesis of a functional 272,871–base pair designer eukaryotic chromosome, synIII, which is based on the 316,617–base pair native Saccharomyces cerevisiae chromosome III. Changes to synIII include TAG/TAA stop-codon replacements, deletion of subtelomeric regions, introns, transfer RNAs, transposons, and silent mating loci as well as insertion of loxPsym sites to enable genome scrambling. SynIII is functional in S. cerevisiae. Scrambling of the chromosome in a heterozygous diploid reveals a large increase in a-mater derivatives resulting from loss of the MATα allele on synIII. The complete design and synthesis of synIII establishes S. cerevisiae as the basis for designer eukaryotic genome biology. Science 04 Apr 2014: Vol. 344, Issue 6179, pp. 55-58 DOI: 10.1126/science.1249252
Full-text available
Botanists, both professional and amateur, can have a substantial impact on uncommon plant taxa through over-collecting, and in some cases this may result in extinction of uncommon taxa. This paper reviews examples of over-collecting, mainly from die New Zealand flora, and suggests five guidelines to reduce its impact: (1) to use photographs where possible, especially as a preliminary record, (2) not to collect whole plants unless there are more than 20 plants, or more than 5 % of any one plant, (3) not to collect flowers or fruits if only a few present, (4) not to collect duplicates, and (5) to use seeds or cuttings for cultivation. Awareness of the effects of over-collection and adoption of these collecting guidelines should contribute significantly to the conservation of uncommon plants.