Brazilian legislation on genetic heritage harms Biodiversity Convention goals and threatens basic biology research and education

Abstract

Beginning in November 2018, Brazilian legislation regulating access to genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge will cause a bureaucratic collapse of Biodiversity research in Brazil. Law number 13.123/2015 and Decree 8772/2016 impose severe barriers to basic and applied research, and to international cooperation by introducing mandatory registry of research access to native organisms in Brazil. This legal framework was meant to improve governmental control over systems of biotechnology research using genetic material and associated chemical compounds, which are central points of the Nagoya Protocol (CBD 2011) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992, 2012). However, the requirements imposed by the mandatory registry of research in the new National System for Governance of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen), the system of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs), and the need to record access to organismal data prior to publication of scientific results or exportation of specimens for scientific research are technically impracticable and not part of the Nagoya Protocol or CBD. These systems have already begun to compromise biodiversity studies and training of human resources in biological sciences, which depend on international partnerships. Biological collections and laboratories based in Brazil will cease to function due to the high operational costs and legal impediments affecting access to national biodiversity by foreigners. On the global scenario, Brazilian science will certainly lose competitiveness.

In violation to the Nagoya Protocol (CBD 2011), law number 13.123/2015 does not recognize basic scientific research as a special area that should be fostered and stimulated through streamlined processes. The Nagoya Protocol recommends that parties should “[c]reate conditions to promote and encourage research which contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, particularly in developing countries, including through simplified measures on access for non-commercial research purposes, taking into account the need to address a change of intent for such research” (CBD 2011, Article 8A). Likewise, article 8C stresses the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture, and their special importance to food safety. While this last recommendation is followed by Decree 8772/2016 (chapter IV), the recommendation for facilitating non-commercial research is ignored. On the contrary, Kafkian bureaucratic restrictions were created.

Between 2006 and 2015, CGen (the Brazilian Genetic Resources Council) Resolution 21/2006 exempted basic research in evolution, identification of organisms, epidemiology, and organization of scientific collections from the requirements of prior licensing and data registration for accessing the so-called genetic heritage. The resolution did not exempt researchers from several other licensing and mandatory data registration systems, such as the scientific specimens collecting system (SisBio), export licenses, CITES registration of endangered species, ethical requirements, sanitary vigilance approvals, and permits for scientific expeditions, but was a much-needed respite from the bureaucratic burden imposed by the Government. Most significant among these systems are the permit procedures for collecting of specimens, which already requires complex reporting in the SisBio database. Despite the redundancy of these multiple control systems, the new law revoked CGen Resolution 21/2006 in 2015.

The imposed bureaucracy is also retroactive and demands all biology-related research since November 2015 to be regularized by November 2018, and that noncompliant institutions will be liable to substantial fines. The requirement to register hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of accesses to organisms will paralyze the functioning of hundreds of laboratories based in Brazilian universities and research institutes. It is worth noting that most basic science researchers in Brazil lack the technical assistance necessary to comply with the new data recording requirements. Long hours, possibly days or months, which are now dedicated to research, curation of collections, and teaching will be deviated to the filling of electronic forms.

To illustrate the burden imposed by the new requirements, based on an estimate of the amount of time necessary to register the DNA sequences of Brazilian organisms with data deposited in GenBank since November 2015 (query: Brasil|Brazil NOT Homo sapiens; release date >11/2015; 683.353 sequences) in the current system, Brazilian scientists would spend a total of 7,116 days filling online forms (using a conservative estimate of 5 minutes per entry, working 8 hours a day in front of a computer). This example deals with a single molecular database. Metagenomic studies imply thousands of accessions per sampling. Systematic and inventory research often involve hundreds to thousands of sampled individuals housed in various collections in Brazil and abroad. Compulsory inclusion of all this data into any database prior to publication is a massive waste of time and resources, considering the very fact that the data will be published.

In addition to increased bureaucratic burden, the law imposes many restrictive rules to international collaboration in non-commercial research. In its very first paragraph, law number 13.123/2015 prohibits foreign researchers from accessing the Brazilian genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge without fulfilling significant legal and bureaucratic commitments. This means that curators may no longer show specimens deposited in scientific collections to foreign visiting scientists without prior registration of legal contracts among research institutions. Such binding documents include the need to formally record the access to Brazilian biodiversity components prior to publication of results.

The restrictive legislation in Brazil conflicts with global initiatives to foster Biodiversity Sciences. Governments, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, have acknowledged the existence of a “taxonomic impediment” to the sound management of biodiversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative, GTI 2018). The purpose of the GTI is to remove or reduce this taxonomic impediment - in other words, the knowledge gaps in our taxonomic system (including those associated with genetic systems), the shortage of trained taxonomists and curators, and the impact these deficiencies have on our ability to conserve, use and share the benefits of our biological diversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative 2018).

Brazil is a signatory country of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (CBD 1992). Article 12 of the CBD emphasizes the need for scientific and technical research, education and training in measures for identification, conservation, and sustainable use of biological diversity. This is a massive task involving thousands of researchers and students. Article 15 of the CBD recognizes the sovereign rights of states over their natural resources and the need to create renditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for environmentally sound uses by other Contracting Parties and not to impose restrictions that run counter to the objectives of the CBD.

Recommendations of the eighth meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity COP8 Biodiversity and Systematics workshop and the associated meeting (CBD 2006) included the duplication of support to taxonomy and its infrastructure at the local, national and global levels. The Guiding principles for the drafting of a policy for collections management, research and dissemination of Brazilian Biodiversity Information (CBD 2006) also included the need for international collaboration, a significant expansion of inventory effort, independent and autonomous production of knowledge within the areas of expertise of the researchers and their institutions, and autonomous control by institutions over their collections and associated specimen-based information, over database development for collections-management purposes and over their specimen and information exchange policies.

After becoming a Party to the CBD in 1992, Brazil has invested substantial resources to study its biodiversity, improving the vastly underfunded conditions of institutions with biological reference collections, and elaborating a policy for keeping such collections (Peixoto et al. 2006). In 2006, the national research funding agency CNPq, in partnership with Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT) and the Coordination for the Improvement of the Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), created the Taxonomy Training Program (PROTAX), in recognition to the imperious need to know the species composition of Brazil and their phylogenetic relationships to preserve national biodiversity (CNPq 2018). CNPq invested US$ 1,735,988,196.00 into scholarships and research projects involving the biological sciences (CNPq 2018). At the state level, the BIOTA-FAPESP Program, launched in 1999 (http://www.fapesp.br/biota/), became a benchmark of organized effort to know, map and analyze the biodiversity of the State of São Paulo, including its fauna, flora and microorganisms, as well as to evaluate the possibilities of sustainable exploitation and to subsidize the formulation of conservation policies.

Consistent with the concern about the need to train new highly-skilled professionals in Biodiversity research, CAPES, in 2011, brought together all graduate courses in botany, ecology, oceanography, zoology, and related fields into a new Biodiversity area (http://capes.gov.br/component/content/article/44-avaliacao/4653-biodiversidade). This effort has resulted in the largest global organization targeting higher education on Biodiversity, currently covering 141 graduate programs.

Should the currently used interpretations of the law remain unaltered, the most productive research fields will be the most penalized. The performance of Brazilian Zoology in the global scenario has been substantial, with two universities, USP and UFRJ, leading the rank of the number of published papers worldwide (http://cwur.org/2017/subjects.php#Zoology). Overall, the performance of biodiversity-based research will become unsustainable, undermining all investment made by government agencies.

We are currently describing less than half the number of species that become extinct every year. In 2009, the formally described species of the world amounted to about 1.9 million species, with 297,897 plants, 98,998 fungi, 64,788 chordates and 1,359,365 invertebrates and 66,307 microorganisms (Chapman 2009). Arthropods may comprise 80-90% of all species of terrestrial macroorganisms (Stork 2010) and 85-95% of arthropods, invertebrates and microorganisms have yet to be named and described (Hollingsworth 2017). By 2016, the World flora had approximately 374,000 described and accepted plant species, and about 2,000 new species were described annually, with Australia, Brazil, China and New Guinea being the largest contributors (Christenhusz and Byng 2016). These authors noted that the numbers of new plant species being described were declining due to reduction in financial and scientific support for fundamental natural history studies. In Brazil this decline is yet to come and this productive phase is at the brink of collapse due to adverse biodiversity legislation.

If we need to know our planet’s species to protect them, we are certainly not doing enough and governmental bureaucracy in Brazil is certainly not helping. The current legal framework has already begun to compromise biodiversity studies, activities of natural history collections, and international cooperation. Minimally, in compliance with Article 8 of the Nagoya Protocol, Brazilian authorities should exempt non-commercial biodiversity research from unnecessary bureaucratic burden through legal mechanisms equivalent to the former CGen Resolution 21/2006.

Full text

An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2018) 90(2): 1279-1284
(Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences)
Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1590/0001-3765201820180460
www.scielo.br/aabc | www.fb.com/aabcjournal
1279
EDITORIAL NOTE
Brazilian legislation on genetic heritage harms Biodiversity Convention
goals and threatens basic biology research and education
RUY JOSÉ V. ALVES1, MARCELO WEKSLER2, JOÃO A. OLIVEIRA2, PAULO A. BUCKUP2, JOSÉ P.
POMBAL JR.2, HÉLCIO R.G. SANTANA3, ADRIANO LÚCIO PERACCHI4, ALEXANDER W.A. KELLNER5,
ALEXANDRE ALEIXO6, ALFREDO RICARDO L. BONINO7, ALZIRA MARIA P. DE ALMEIDA8, ANA
LUISA ALBERNAZ6, CAMILA C. RIBAS9, CARLA ZILBERBERG10, CARLOS EDUARDO V. GRELLE10,
CARLOS FREDERICO D. DA ROCHA11, CARLOS JOSÉ E. LAMAS12, CÉLIO FERNANDO B. HADDAD13,
CIBELE R. BONVICINO14, CYNTHIA P.A. PRADO15, DANIELA O. DE LIMA16, DENISE C. ROSSA-
FERES17, FABRÍCIO R. DOS SANTOS18, FÁTIMA REGINA G. SALIMENA19, FERNANDO A. PERINI18,
FLÁVIO A. BOCKMANN20, FRANCISCO LUÍS FRANCO21, GISELE M.L. DEL GIUDICE22, GUARINO
R. COLLI23, IMA CÉLIA G. VIEIRA6, JADER MARINHO-FILHO23, JANE M.C.F. WERNECK3, JORGE
A.D. DOS SANTOS22, JORGE LUIZ DO NASCIMENTO24, JORGE LUIZ NESSIMIAN10, JOSÉ LUIS P.
CORDEIRO25, KLEBER DEL CLARO26, LEANDRO O. SALLES2, LILIAN CASATTI17, LUCIA HELENA R.
PY-DANIE19, LUÍS FÁBIO SILVEIRA12, LUÍS FELIPE TOLEDO27, LUIZ F. DE OLIVEIRA2, LUIZ ROBERTO
MALABARBA28, MARCELO D. DA SILVA12, MÁRCIA S. COURI29, MÁRCIO R.C. MARTINS30, MARCOS D.S.
TAVARES12, MARCOS EDUARDO G. SOBRAL31, MARCUS VINÍCIUS VIEIRA10, MARIA DE LOURDES
A. OLIVEIRA3, MÁRIO CÉSAR C. DE PINNA32, MICHAEL J.G. HOPKINS9, MIRCO SOLÉ33, NAÉRCIO
A. MENEZES12, PAULO PASSOS2, PAULO SERGIO D’ANDREA3, PEDRO C.E.A. PINTO7, PEDRO L.
VIANA6, PETER M. TOLEDO34, ROBERTO E. DOS REIS35, ROBERTO VILELA3, ROGÉRIO P. BASTOS36,
ROSANE G. COLLEVATTI36, RUI C. SILVA10, SANTIAGO C. FISHER35 and ULISSES CARAMASCHI2
Beginning in November 2018, Brazilian legislation regulating access to genetic heritage and associated
traditional knowledge will cause a bureaucratic collapse of Biodiversity research in Brazil. Law number
13.123/2015 and Decree 8772/2016 impose severe barriers to basic and applied research, and to international
cooperation by introducing mandatory registry of research access to native organisms in Brazil. This legal
framework was meant to improve governmental control over systems of biotechnology research using
genetic material and associated chemical compounds, which are central points of the Nagoya Protocol (CBD
2011) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992, 2012). However, the requirements imposed
by the mandatory registry of research in the new National System for Governance of Genetic Heritage
and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen), the system of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs),
and the need to record access to organismal data prior to publication of scientic results or exportation of
specimens for scientic research are technically impracticable and not part of the Nagoya Protocol or CBD.
These systems have already begun to compromise biodiversity studies and training of human resources in
biological sciences, which depend on international partnerships. Biological collections and laboratories
based in Brazil will cease to function due to the high operational costs and legal impediments aecting
Correspondence to: Ruy José Valka Alves
E-mail: ruyvalka@mn.ufrj.br

An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1280
access to national biodiversity by foreigners. On the global scenario, Brazilian science will certainly lose
competitiveness.
In violation to the Nagoya Protocol (CBD 2011), law number 13.123/2015 does not recognize basic
scientic research as a special area that should be fostered and stimulated through streamlined processes.
The Nagoya Protocol recommends that parties should “[c]reate conditions to promote and encourage
research which contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, particularly
in developing countries, including through simplied measures on access for non-commercial research
purposes, taking into account the need to address a change of intent for such research” (CBD 2011, Article
8A). Likewise, article 8C stresses the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture, and their
special importance to food safety. While this last recommendation is followed by Decree 8772/2016
(chapter IV), the recommendation for facilitating non-commercial research is ignored. On the contrary,
Kafkian bureaucratic restrictions were created.
Between 2006 and 2015, CGen (the Brazilian Genetic Resources Council) Resolution 21/2006 exempted
basic research in evolution, identication of organisms, epidemiology, and organization of scientic
collections from the requirements of prior licensing and data registration for accessing the so-called
genetic heritage. The resolution did not exempt researchers from several other licensing and mandatory
data registration systems, such as the scientic specimens collecting system (SisBio), export licenses,
CITES registration of endangered species, ethical requirements, sanitary vigilance approvals, and permits
for scientic expeditions, but was a much-needed respite from the bureaucratic burden imposed by the
Government. Most signicant among these systems are the permit procedures for collecting of specimens,
which already requires complex reporting in the SisBio database. Despite the redundancy of these multiple
control systems, the new law revoked CGen Resolution 21/2006 in 2015.
The imposed bureaucracy is also retroactive and demands all biology-related research since November 2015
to be regularized by November 2018, and that noncompliant institutions will be liable to substantial nes.
The requirement to register hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of accesses to organisms will
paralyze the functioning of hundreds of laboratories based in Brazilian universities and research institutes.
It is worth noting that most basic science researchers in Brazil lack the technical assistance necessary to
comply with the new data recording requirements. Long hours, possibly days or months, which are now
dedicated to research, curation of collections, and teaching will be deviated to the lling of electronic forms.
To illustrate the burden imposed by the new requirements, based on an estimate of the amount of time
necessary to register the DNA sequences of Brazilian organisms with data deposited in GenBank since
November 2015 (query: Brasil|Brazil NOT Homo sapiens; release date >11/2015; 683.353 sequences)
in the current system, Brazilian scientists would spend a total of 7,116 days lling online forms (using a
conservative estimate of 5 minutes per entry, working 8 hours a day in front of a computer). This example
deals with a single molecular database. Metagenomic studies imply thousands of accessions per sampling.
Systematic and inventory research often involve hundreds to thousands of sampled individuals housed
in various collections in Brazil and abroad. Compulsory inclusion of all this data into any database prior
to publication is a massive waste of time and resources, considering the very fact that the data will be
published.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1281
In addition to increased bureaucratic burden, the law imposes many restrictive rules to international
collaboration in non-commercial research. In its very rst paragraph, law number 13.123/2015 prohibits
foreign researchers from accessing the Brazilian genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge
without fullling signicant legal and bureaucratic commitments. This means that curators may no longer
show specimens deposited in scientic collections to foreign visiting scientists without prior registration of
legal contracts among research institutions. Such binding documents include the need to formally record
the access to Brazilian biodiversity components prior to publication of results.
The restrictive legislation in Brazil conflicts with global initiatives to foster Biodiversity Sciences.
Governments, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, have acknowledged the existence of a
“taxonomic impediment” to the sound management of biodiversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative, GTI
2018). The purpose of the GTI is to remove or reduce this taxonomic impediment - in other words, the
knowledge gaps in our taxonomic system (including those associated with genetic systems), the shortage of
trained taxonomists and curators, and the impact these deciencies have on our ability to conserve, use and
share the benets of our biological diversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative 2018).
Brazil is a signatory country of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (CBD 1992). Article 12 of
the CBD emphasizes the need for scientic and technical research, education and training in measures for
identication, conservation, and sustainable use of biological diversity. This is a massive task involving
thousands of researchers and students. Article 15 of the CBD recognizes the sovereign rights of states
over their natural resources and the need to create renditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for
environmentally sound uses by other Contracting Parties and not to impose restrictions that run counter to
the objectives of the CBD.
Recommendations of the eighth meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity COP8 Biodiversity and Systematics workshop and the associated meeting (CBD
2006) included the duplication of support to taxonomy and its infrastructure at the local, national and
global levels. The Guiding principles for the drafting of a policy for collections management, research and
dissemination of Brazilian Biodiversity Information (CBD 2006) also included the need for international
collaboration, a signicant expansion of inventory eort, independent and autonomous production of
knowledge within the areas of expertise of the researchers and their institutions, and autonomous control by
institutions over their collections and associated specimen-based information, over database development
for collections-management purposes and over their specimen and information exchange policies.
After becoming a Party to the CBD in 1992, Brazil has invested substantial resources to study its biodiversity,
improving the vastly underfunded conditions of institutions with biological reference collections, and
elaborating a policy for keeping such collections (Peixoto et al. 2006). In 2006, the national research
funding agency CNPq, in partnership with Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT) and
the Coordination for the Improvement of the Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), created the Taxonomy
Training Program (PROTAX), in recognition to the imperious need to know the species composition of
Brazil and their phylogenetic relationships to preserve national biodiversity (CNPq 2018). CNPq invested
US$ 1,735,988,196.00 into scholarships and research projects involving the biological sciences (CNPq
2018). At the state level, the BIOTA-FAPESP Program, launched in 1999 (http://www.fapesp.br/biota/),
became a benchmark of organized eort to know, map and analyze the biodiversity of the State of São

An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1282
Paulo, including its fauna, ora and microorganisms, as well as to evaluate the possibilities of sustainable
exploitation and to subsidize the formulation of conservation policies.
Consistent with the concern about the need to train new highly-skilled professionals in Biodiversity
research, CAPES, in 2011, brought together all graduate courses in botany, ecology, oceanography,
zoology, and related elds into a new Biodiversity area (http://capes.gov.br/component/content/article/44-
avaliacao/4653-biodiversidade). This eort has resulted in the largest global organization targeting higher
education on Biodiversity, currently covering 141 graduate programs.
Should the currently used interpretations of the law remain unaltered, the most productive research elds
will be the most penalized. The performance of Brazilian Zoology in the global scenario has been substantial,
with two universities, USP and UFRJ, leading the rank of the number of published papers worldwide
(http://cwur.org/2017/subjects.php#Zoology). Overall, the performance of biodiversity-based research will
become unsustainable, undermining all investment made by government agencies.
We are currently describing less than half the number of species that become extinct every year. In 2009,
the formally described species of the world amounted to about 1.9 million species, with 297,897 plants,
98,998 fungi, 64,788 chordates and 1,359,365 invertebrates and 66,307 microorganisms (Chapman 2009).
Arthropods may comprise 80-90% of all species of terrestrial macroorganisms (Stork 2010) and 85-95% of
arthropods, invertebrates and microorganisms have yet to be named and described (Hollingsworth 2017).
By 2016, the World ora had approximately 374,000 described and accepted plant species, and about 2,000
new species were described annually, with Australia, Brazil, China and New Guinea being the largest
contributors (Christenhusz and Byng 2016). These authors noted that the numbers of new plant species
being described were declining due to reduction in nancial and scientic support for fundamental natural
history studies. In Brazil this decline is yet to come and this productive phase is at the brink of collapse due
to adverse biodiversity legislation.
If we need to know our planet’s species to protect them, we are certainly not doing enough and governmental
bureaucracy in Brazil is certainly not helping. The current legal framework has already begun to compromise
biodiversity studies, activities of natural history collections, and international cooperation. Minimally, in
compliance with Article 8 of the Nagoya Protocol, Brazilian authorities should exempt non-commercial
biodiversity research from unnecessary bureaucratic burden through legal mechanisms equivalent to the
former CGen Resolution 21/2006.
REFERENCES
CBD. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.
CBD. 2006. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ninth meeting. Curitiba, Brazil. 20-31 March
2006. Agenda item 16. Biodiversity, The Megascience in Focus: outcomes and recommendations of the COP8 Associated
Meeting, and a statement of principles by Brazilian Biodiversity scientists. Organized by Associação Memória Naturalis-
AMNAT. – Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional, 2006. ISBN 8574270156.
CBD. 2011. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their
Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annex. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montreal.
CBD. 2012. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Eleventh meeting. Hyderabad, India, 8-19
October Agenda item 13.10.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1283
CGEN RESOLUTION. 2006. Resolução nº 21, de 31 de agosto de 2006. http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/sbf_dpg/_arquivos/
res21cons.pdf.
CHAPMAN AD. 2009. Numbers of living species in Australia and the world, 2nd Canberra Australian Government, Department
of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/2ee3f4a1-f130-465b-9c7a-
79373680a067/files/nlsaw-2nd-complete.pdf.
CHRISTENHUSZ MJM AND BYNG JW. 2016. The number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase.
Phytotaxa 261(3): 201-217.
CNPQ. 2018. PROTAX - Programa de Capacitação em Taxonomia. http://memoria.cnpq.br/apresentacao6;jsessionid=18B54F1D
63ABFDC8D2ED5CE36BD17474).
GLOBAL TAXONOMY INITIATIVE. 2018. https://www.cbd.int/gti/default.shtml
HOLLINGSWORTH PM. 2017. Taxonomy: avoid extra bureaucracy. Nature 546: 600.
PEIXOTO AL, BARBOSA MRV, MENEZES M AND MAIA LC. 2006. Diretrizes e estratégias para a modernização de coleções
biológicas brasileiras e a consolidação de sistemas integrados de informação sobre biodiversidade. Brasília, DF: Ministério da
Ciência e Tecnologia. 314 pp. http://www.cria.org.br/cgee/col/.
STORK NE. 2010. Re-assessing current extinction rates. Biodiversity Conservation 19: 357-371.
AUTHORS’ AFFILIATIONS
1Departamento de Botânica, Museu Nacional/ UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
2Departamento de Vertebrados, Museu Nacional/UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
3Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Avenida Brasil, 4365, Manguinhos, 21040-360 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
4Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Biologia, Departamento de Biologia Animal, C.P. 74503, 23851-970
Seropédica, RJ, Brazil
5Laboratório de Sistemática e Tafonomia de Vertebrados Fósseis, Departamento de Geologia e Paleontologia, Museu Nacional/
UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
6Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Coordenação de Zoologia, Av. Magalhães Barata, 376, São Braz, 66040-170 Belém, PA, Brazil
7Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Centro de Ciências Exatas e da Natureza, Campus I, Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia,
CCEN, UFPB, Cidade Universitária, 58059-900 João Pessoa, PB, Brazil
8Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Centro de Pesquisas Aggeu Magalhães, Centro de Pesquisa Aggeu Magalhães, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego,
s/n, Cidade Universitária, 50670-420 Recife, PE, Brazil
9Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Programa de Coleções e Acervos Cientícos, Av. André Araújo, 2936, Aleixo,
69060-001 Manaus, AM, Brazil
10Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Departamento de Zoologia, UFRJ, Departamento de Zoologia, CCS, Bloco A, Ilha do
Fundão, 21941-590 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
11Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524,
Maracanã, 20550-019 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
12Universidade de São Paulo, Museu de Zoologia da USP, Av. Nazaré, 481, Laboratório de Diptera, Sala 404, Ipiranga, 04263-000
São Paulo, SP, Brazil
13Departamento de Zoologia e Centro de Aquicultura, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Av. 24 A, 1515, 13506-900 Rio Claro, SP, Brazil
14Instituto Nacional de Câncer, Coordenação de Pesquisa, Rua André Cavalcanti, 37, 4º andar, 20231-050, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
15Universidade Estadual Paulista, Laboratório de Ecologia e Comportamento de Anuros, Departamento de Morfologia e Fisiologia
Animal, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Via de Acesso Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane Km 05,14884-900
Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil
16Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul, Rua Jacob Reinaldo Haupenthal, 1580, Centro, 97900-000 Cerro Largo, RS, Brazil
17 Universidade Estadual Paulista, Departamento de Zoologia e Botânica, Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas, 15054-
000 São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil
18Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Av. Antonio Carlos,
6627, C.P. 486, Sala L3-244, ICB, Pampulha, 31270-010 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
19Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, ICB, Departamento de Botânica, Campus Universitário,
Martelos, 36036-900 Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil
20Universidade de São Paulo, FFCLRP, Departamento de Biologia, Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, Monte Alegre, 14040-901 Ribeirão
Preto SP, Brazil
21Laboratório Especial de Coleções Zoológicas, Instituto Butantan, Av. Dr. Vital Brasil, 1500, 05503-900 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
22Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Campus Universitário, s/n, Centro, 36570-000
Viçosa, MG, Brazil

An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1284
23 Universidade de Brasília, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, 70910-900 Brasília, DF, Brazil
24Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade/ICMBio, Reserva Biológica Guaribas, PB 071, Km 01 (Estrada
para Jacaraú), Pau D’Arco, Zona Rural, 58280-000 Mamanguape, PB, Brazil
25Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Estrada Rodrigues Caldas, 3400, Taquara, 22713-375 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
26Diretor de Pesquisa, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Rua Ceará, s/n,Umuarama, 38400-902 Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
27 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Multiusuário de Bioacústica, Laboratório de História Natural de Anfíbios Brasileiros,
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
28Presidente da Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Instituto de Biociências,
Departamento de Zoologia, Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, Agronomia, 91501-970 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
29Departamento de Entomologia, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n 20940-
040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
30Presidente da Sociedade Brasileira Herpetologia, Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São
Paulo, Rua do Matão, Trav. 14, 05508-090 São Paulo, Brazil
31Universidade Federal de São João Del-Rei, Departamento de Ciências Naturais, Praça Dom Helvécio, 74, Dom Bosco,
36301-160 São João Del Rei, MG, Brazil
32Diretor, Universidade de São Paulo, Museu de Zoologia da USP, Departamento de Vertebrados, Av. Nazaré, 481, Caixa
Postal 42494, Ipiranga, 05422-970 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
33Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Rod. Jorge Amado, Km 16, 45662-900
Salobrinho, Ilhéus, BA, Brazil
34Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Coordenação Ciência do Sistema Terrestre, Avenida dos Astronautas, 1758, Jardim
da Granja, 12227-010 São Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil
35Escola de Ciências, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ipiranga 6681, Prédio 40, sala 110, 90619-
900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
36 Universidade Federal de Goiás, Laboratório de Ecologia e Comportamento Animal, Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de
Ciências Biológicas, 74000-970 Goiânia, GO, Brazil