Framing the future for taxonomic monography: Improving recognition, support, and access

Abstract

Taxonomic monographs synthesize biodiversity knowledge and document biodiversity change through recent and geological time for a particular organismal group, sometimes also incorporating cultural and place-based knowledge. They are a vehicle through which broader questions about ecological and evolutionary patterns and processes can be generated and answered (e.g., Muñoz Rodríguez et al., 2019). Chiefly, monography represents the foundational research upon which all biological work is based (Hamilton et al., 2021). Moreover, monography can be a pathway to developing inclusive scientific practices, engaging diverse audiences in expanding and disseminating indigenous and local knowledge and significance of place. Apart from the scientific importance of monography, these comprehensive biodiversity treatments are also crucial for policy, conservation, human wellbeing, and the sustainable use of natural resources. Taxonomic, cultural and biodiversity data within monographs aid in the implementation of law and policy, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Buck & Hamilton, 2011), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (e.g., Neo et al., 2017). While vital as a knowledge resource and tool for conservation and research, monographs are not available for many groups of organisms. This is of particular concern for organisms that are threatened with extinction, of medical or economic importance, and those organisms that have the potential to provide insight into biodiversity change over time because they are most susceptible to global change. In discussing the future of collections-based systematics, researchers have highlighted the importance of updated monographic workflows, collaborative teams, and effective ways to educate and disseminate the results of monographs to the public and scientific community (e.g., Wen et al., 2015; Grace et al., 2021). Here, we discuss how improving recognition, support, and access can lead to greater inclusivity while promoting a more active, sustainable, and collaborative outlook for monographic research.

Full text

© 2022 Gorneau, Ausich, Bertolino, Bik, Daly, Demissew, Donoso, Folk, Freire-
Fierro, Ghazanfar, Grace, Hu, Kulkarni, Lichter-Marck, Lohmann, Malumbres-
Olarte, Muasya, Perez-Gonzalez, Singh, Siniscalchi, Specht, Stigall, Tank,
Walker, Wright, Zamani & Esposito. This article is published under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/)
https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
Framing the future for
taxonomic monography:
Improving recognition,
support, and access
Jacob A. Gorneau1,2, William I. Ausich3, Sandro
Bertolino4, Holly Bik5, Marymegan Daly6,
Sebsebe Demissew7, David A. Donoso8,9,
Ryan Folk10, Alina Freire-Fierro11, Shahina A.
Ghazanfar12, Olwen M. Grace12, Ai-Qun Hu12,
Siddharth Kulkarni13, Isaac H. Lichter-Marck14,
Lúcia G. Lohmann15, Jagoba Malumbres-
Olarte16,17, A. Muthama Muasya18, Abel Pérez-
González19, Yashica Singh20, Carolina M.
Siniscalchi10, Chelsea D. Specht21, Alycia L.
Stigall22, David C. Tank23, Leilani A. Walker24,
David F. Wright25,26, Alireza Zamani27, Lauren A.
Esposito1.
Published: 27 January 2022
Aliations:
¹Institute for Biodiversity
Science and Sustainability,
California Academy of
Sciences, San Francisco,
California 94118, USA;
²Department of Biology, San
Francisco State University,
San Francisco, California
94132, USA; ³School of Earth
Sciences, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio
43210, USA; ⁴Department of
Life Sciences and Systems
Biology, University of Turin,
Turin, Italy; ⁵Department of
Marine Sciences, University
of Georgia, Athens, Georgia,
USA; ⁶Department of
Evolution, Ecology &
Organismal Biology, The Ohio
State University, Columbus,
Ohio, USA; ⁷The National
Herbarium, Department of
Plant Biology and Biodiversity
Management, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia; ⁸Departamento de
Biología, Escuela Politécnica
Nacional, Quito, Ecuador;
Cont'd at end.
Correspondence:
Jacob Gorneau
Email:jgorneau@calacademy.
org
Keywords: inclusive practices; communities of practice;
CRediT taxonomy; decolonizing science; multidimensional
mentoring
1 INTRODUCTION
Taxonomic monographs synthesize biodiversity
knowledge and document biodiversity change through
recent and geological time for a particular organismal
group, sometimes also incorporating cultural and place-
based knowledge. They are a vehicle through which broader
questions about ecological and evolutionary patterns and
processes can be generated and answered (e.g., Muñoz-
Rodríguez et al., 2019). Chiey, monography represents the
foundational research upon which all biological work is
based (Hamilton et al., 2021). Moreover, monography can
be a pathway to developing inclusive scientic practices,
engaging diverse audiences in expanding and disseminating

1(1):8328
2January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
indigenous and local knowledge and
signicance of place.
Apart from the scientic importance
of monography, these comprehensive
biodiversity treatments are also crucial for
policy, conservation, human wellbeing, and
the sustainable use of natural resources.
Taxonomic, cultural and biodiversity
data within monographs aid in the
implementation of law and policy, such
as the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES), the Nagoya Protocol of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (Buck &
Hamilton, 2011), and the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List
(e.g., Neo et al., 2017).
While vital as a knowledge resource
and tool for conservation and research,
monographs are not available for many
groups of organisms. This is of particular
concern for organisms that are threatened
with extinction, of medical or economic
importance, and those organisms that
have the potential to provide insight into
biodiversity change over time because they
are most susceptible to global change. In
discussing the future of collections-based
systematics, researchers have highlighted
the importance of updated monographic
workows, collaborative teams, and eective
ways to educate and disseminate the results
of monographs to the public and scientic
community (e.g., Wen et al., 2015; Grace et
al., 2021). Here, we discuss how improving
recognition, support, and access can lead
to greater inclusivity while promoting a
more active, sustainable, and collaborative
outlook for monographic research.
2 RECOGNITION: APPROPRIATE
VALUATION AND RESOURCING OF
MONOGRAPHIC WORK
As an enterprise underpinning all
biological and even some cultural research,
monography oers uniquely transformative
opportunities for the global collaboration
of individuals from dierent elds and
cultures (Tachibana, 2019; Lagomarsino
& Frost, 2020). Nonetheless, we must
acknowledge how the historic and ongoing
role of colonialism and racism within our
own institutions exerts signicant inuence
on the practice of monographic work,
limiting this practice to those with access
to global resources, and to the detriment of
the eld. While most resources, including
comprehensive scientic collections and
historical literature, are located in the global
north, the most critical need for monographs
is in the global south, where species diversity
is the most rich yet remains relatively
underdocumented in the scientic literature
when compared to the global north (Grace et
al., 2021). Threats to biodiversity are higher
in the global south as well, making the case
for monography in these areas even more
salient (Tilman et al., 2017).
Monographic research itself is
not immune to the colonial, extractionist
framework historically embedded in science
(Haraway, 1984; Sheets-Pyenson, 1987; Fagan,
2007; Madsen-Brooks, 2009; Roy, 2018).
Despite growing eorts to decolonize the
natural sciences broadly (Baker et al., 2019;
Eichhorn et al., 2020), this historical trend
persists in specimen-based research (Das &
Lowe, 2018). A majority of taxonomic studies
are led by, and often only include, scientists
from the global north, thus perpetuating the
‘parachute science’ phenomenon (Tancoigne
& Ollivier, 2017; Asase et al., 2021). For
example, about 40% of coral reef biodiversity
publications involving eldwork in Indonesia
or the Philippines have no author from the
country where the research was conducted
(Stefanoudis et al., 2021). Colonial extractive

1(1):8328
3January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
practices are enabled and upheld through
the exclusion of knowledge-holders from
local communities, even within nation
states. These knowledge holders include,
among others, “parataxonomists” (Janzen,
2004; Abadie et al., 2008) and indigenous
peoples who are omitted from scientic
work (either in practice or in credit) through
historic exclusions from their lands or from
academic workplaces. Furthermore, eld-
based research is fraught with challenges to
diversity and inclusion, from the exclusionary
impact of the cost of travel and eld
equipment, to the limited accessibility of
eld sites, to concerns about harassment and
safety of at-risk marginalized or minoritized
researchers in the eld (e.g., Clancy et al.,
2014; John & Khan, 2018; Demery & Pipkin,
2020; Giles et al., 2020; Morales et al., 2020).
The asymmetry of global south
authorship may be greater in monographic
work than in non-monographic taxonomic
papers. For example, in the Flora of Ecuador
series, only about 5% of the authors are
Ecuadorian (A. Freire-Fierro, pers. obs. 2021),
and in the Flora Iranica series only four of 97
contributors (1963–2005) are Iranian (Akhani,
2006). However, there are exceptions, such
the Flora of Southern Africa and the Flora
of Pakistan series, which have an authorship
majority from within the country of focus.
Perhaps the best example of a national
eort towards producing a comprehensive
monograph of all plants, algae, and fungi of
a country is the Flora of Brazil 2020 (BFG,
2018). This project included a team of 979
taxonomists, 854 of whom are from Brazil,
constituting one of the most collaborative
networks of taxonomists to date (BFG, 2021).
While reective of the strong and productive
taxonomic communities in the global south
(i.e., Latin America, southern and eastern
Africa), members of these communities
usually work with limited literature and
funding (for both travel to museums and
eld-based research), face language barriers,
and encounter diculties borrowing
specimens from institutions in the global
north.
The recent implementation of
international protocols, while well-
intentioned, further augments this
inequality. For example, local policies derived
from the Nagoya Protocol have aspects
that increase complexity to the taxonomic
workow (Acosta & Pérez-González,
2019), the paperwork required, and the
legal burden to ship specimens between
countries (Fernández et al., 2021), thereby
increasing the global taxonomic impediment
(Prathapan et al., 2018). Additional
inequalities may also arise through new
technologies. For example, though DNA
barcoding may accelerate revisionary
systematics in hyperdiverse taxa (Meierotto
et al., 2019), recent proposals to ban solely
morphology-based revisions (Sharkey et
al., 2021) would further disenfranchise
workers without DNA expertise or access
to these technologies (Zamani et al., 2021).
Conversely, morphological treatments can
lead to molecular work, further emphasizing
the importance of morphological treatises
(Grace et al., 2021). The progressing
ease of long-distance communication
and developments in DNA sequencing
technology are allowing greater access and
potential for collaboration. The onus is
upon the monographic community of the
global north to maximize collaboration with
scientists in the global south and traditional
knowledge-holders.
In addition to the historic and social
factors that impact scientists engaged in
monography, the metrics for scientic success
in most institutions (e.g., citations, journal
impact factors) do not reect or incentivize
behaviors supporting monography, and

1(1):8328
4January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
more broadly, inclusive science (Ebach et al.,
2011). This is reected in the fact that journals
focusing on taxonomic contributions
often have low impact factors and citation
indices or are excluded from these metrics
altogether. High impact factor journals, on
the other hand, often allow taxonomy to
be referenced without appropriate citation
of the protologue (or lack references when
authorship is attributed), dampening the
impact metrics for taxonomic research
(Wägele et al., 2011; Steiner et al., 2015). This
issue is exemplied by the initial decision by
Clarivate to remove Zootaxa—a mega journal
in zoological systematics which publishes the
greatest number of new taxa and taxonomic/
nomenclatural acts—from their Journal
Citation Reports. Decisions like these
threaten to undermine the very foundational
research upon which all biological work is
based (Hamilton et al., 2021). While it may
be impractical or illogical for some works to
formally cite the description of each species
mentioned in a paper, Agnarsson and Kuntner
(2007) recommend citing the protologue in
instances where the hypothesis of the species
is a crucial element of the research (e.g., in
taxonomic, phylogenetic, hybridization, or
population genetic studies). While metrics
for academic success is a broadly reaching
issue, the fact remains that taxonomic work
faces specic and unique hurdles when
it comes to recognition, and the current
metric-driven system of success promotes
the publication of large monographic work
as a series of smaller works, each with less
individual scientic impact but higher
combined evaluation metrics.
The loss of expertise through attrition
is particularly hard felt in countries that
harbor signicant species diversity yet
rely strongly on bibliometric indices for
evaluation of research success (e.g., Brazil,
see Pinto et al., 2021). The recruitment and
retention of a scientic workforce dedicated
to monography and biodiversity studies
could increase to a level consistent with
the real need for taxonomic expertise, if
monographic work were recognized in a way
consistent with its foundational impact and
scientic importance (Gafney, 2005; Davies
et al., 2021; Esposito et al., 2022).
This lack of recognition in publishing
can also lead to the loss of already limited
monographic expertise in academia. When
taxonomists are unable to secure positions
in metric-focused academic job searches, it
not only impacts the current generation of
taxonomists, but future generations which
are neither incentivized by the status quo nor
provided access to mentorship. Taxonomy
may be already losing a signicant degree
of potential in undergraduate students who
lack exposure to taxonomy during their
undergraduate studies. A national survey
of the publicly funded taxonomic workforce
in New Zealand in 2015 found that only
16% of taxonomists are between the ages of
20–40, representing a huge risk to succession
(Nelson et al., 2015). While major funding
schemes (e.g., NSF PEET and PBI in the US,
see de Carvalho et al., 2007; CNPq PROTAX
in Brazil), have promoted greater training,
it is unlikely given issues regarding the
academic valuation of monographic work
that trainees are later employed primarily as
monographers.
We suggest two eorts that could aid
in this reprioritization, aligning mentoring
models with collaborative research ventures
that contribute globally to a more equitable
and accessible science:
(1) Multidimensional Mentoring:
Collaborative monographs build
better opportunities for cross-generational
and cross-disciplinary training. The most
common model for monographic training
remains an apprentice model that is not

1(1):8328
5January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
easily scalable and does not transfer to
new organisms or research programs
in ways that support career mobility or
exibility. Furthermore, given the loss of
taxonomic expertise in many lineages and
expertise in nomenclature more broadly,
the apprenticeship model is not practical
(although see Partnerships for Enhancing
Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET), Rodman
& Cody, 2003). Rather than abandoning
these practices, we must expand the goals
of programs such as PEET to push for
greater inclusiveness in our recruitment and
retention eorts, and consider mentoring
models that are highly collaborative,
exible, and more participatory, requiring
a reexamination of access in the context of
monography.
While broader attitudes in STEM
disciplines undervalue a number of
activities that do not t within a narrow
view of scientic impact, newer models for
mentorship align well with monography.
The concept of multidimensional
mentoring stems from the recognition that
a multiplicity of viewpoints and skills can be
developed through a mentoring model that
incorporates a diverse network of people
(peers, direct supervisors, role models) and
resources (books, videos, training programs)
(e.g., Long et al., 2018; Davies et al., 2021), in
contrast to the traditional 1:1 mentor/mentee
structure. Among the many benets of
multidimensional mentoring is the potential
for increased contact with mentors who share
similar backgrounds or identities (Russell
and Horne, 2009, Hernandez et al., 2017,
O’Brien et al., 2020). This concept oers a
useful model for thinking about monography,
as monographic practices inherently
incorporate diverse modalities and involve
extended networks of users and contributors.
Because monographers frequently work in
institutions like science centers, natural
history museums, and botanical gardens,
there are added opportunities to leverage the
complexity of the network and the products
involved in monography. These institutions
represent the ideal venues for highlighting
critical culturally-relevant issues such
as the biodiversity crisis, disparities in
environmental justice, and ecosystem or
natural resource resilience in the face of
climate change.
(2) Contributorship and citations:
The Contributor Roles Taxonomy
(CRediT) system is a high-level contribution
taxonomy, including 14 dened roles, that
can be used to represent the roles typically
played by contributors to scientic scholarly
output, regardless of perceived size of
contribution or whether the contributor
plays an authorship role traditionally
recognized by academic institutions (Fig.
1) (Allen et al., 2014; Brand et al., 2015).
This provides a exible system for diverse
measures of impact leading to increased
recognition metrics, shifting away from the
conventional ‘authorship’ and towards the
concept of ‘contributorship’. The CRediT
system is already being widely adopted
by major publishers (e.g., eLife, Elsevier,
ScholarOne, Springer), and mapping
the CRediT system to monographic work
would allow a pathway for our community
to attribute formal academic publishing
credit to a wide variety of the contributions
made to monographic work (from local eld
guides to citizen/community scientists to
collections managers), extended over the
entire time frame of the research project.
The roles assigned in CRediT would then
be recognized through relevant literature
citations for all journals containing
monographic work and/or the research that
depends on its conclusions. While there has
been some headway by publishers to help
designate this, the implementation is varied,

Framing the Future for Taxonomic Monography
6January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
Figure 1. A conceptual map of various hypothetical roles in the production of a monograph. The CRediT system
(Allen et al., 2014) is a framework for publications that shifts away from traditional ‘authorship’ and toward
inclusive ‘contributorship’, providing a pathway for greater formal recognition of the many people involved in
the production of a monograph.

1(1):8328
7January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
and citation conventions still often only
include the rst author and not all co-rst
authors, co-corresponding authors, or co-
supervisors (i.e., Teixeira da Silva, 2021).
3 SUPPORT: BUILDING
INTERDISCIPLINARY
RELATIONSHIPS AND SUCCESSION
Although monography is often
still primarily a solo art (Bebber et al.,
2013), modern monographs can involve
multicultural and multi-disciplinary
collaborations. Indeed, monographic work is
quite amenable to the collaborative nature of
modern scientic endeavors (e.g., Fišer et al.,
2009; Grace et al., 2021). A stronger impetus
for networking across biological research
communities would enhance funding
potential for monographic work, while
grounding other biological research (and
increasing the potential for reproducibility).
Although there are many potential ways for
allied elds and monographic research to
be mutually supportive (e.g., Gotelli, 2004;
Halme et al., 2015, Murray et al., 2017),
sample collection and documentation by
ecologists, eld biologists or molecular
biologists may not align with the needs/
standards for monography (Funk et al.,
2018), and integrating taxonomists into
allied research can be viewed as complicating
workows (Granjou et al., 2014). To aid in
aligning disparate goals, funding agencies
and publishers could, for example, require
that all sample collection meet international
standards as part of data management and
reproducibility criteria. This would increase
the inclusion of taxonomic researchers as an
integral part of research teams to support
appropriate biodiversity documentation and
ensure that any specimens were adequately
deposited into publicly accessible collections.
For example, Sheldon (2016) describes the
mutual benets aorded by both taxonomists
and ecologists when they “carpool” their
eorts. While the goals and methods behind
both disciplines are considerably dierent,
Sheldon (2016) provides a good case study
for how ecology can reciprocally benet
taxonomy and can even sometimes lead
to ecologists contributing to the eld of
taxonomy directly.
The publication of monographs,
especially those involving large numbers
of taxa with global distributions, can be
increased by expanding the breadth of
those who collaborate with monographic
work. Many allied elds (i.e., phylogenetics,
anatomy and physiology, ecology, toxinology,
computational biology, population genetics,
comparative genetics and genomics) are not
well-integrated with monographic work,
with researchers in well-aligned elds often
unaware of existing monographs or not fully
aware of their relevance or scientic value.
This lack of integration may complicate the
interpretation of ecological, physiological,
or biological data (Bortolus, 2008; Vink et
al., 2012; Prié et al., 2012; Daglio and Dawson,
2019, Lagomarsino and Frost 2020), but
also means that there are many unrealized
opportunities for comparative studies.
Collaborative monographs are clearly in the
realm of hypothesis-testing research, as they
include species delimitations (Valdecasas
et al., 2014), comparative analyses, and
phylogenetic inferences (e.g., Magalhães
et al., 2017; Cui et al., 2019; Mandiwana-
Neudani et al., 2019). Monography therefore
holds the potential to create opportunities
for internationally collaborative, cross-
generational, and cross-disciplinary training,
building international capacity elded by
a more inclusive and well-trained set of
scientists addressing the biodiversity crisis.
Similarly, it is crucial that administrators
of institutions where taxonomic work is

1(1):8328
8January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
conducted (i.e., universities, museums)
are educated about the importance of
monographs and the skills, knowledge,
and time commitment needed to complete
them, something that could be strengthened
through advocacy by colleagues from allied
elds.
Along these lines, the future of
monography may necessitate a shift from
the long, rigid format of monographs to a
series of smaller standalone monographic
papers or living monographs, sometimes
referred to as e-monographs. Removing the
strict requirements of what is considered
a monographic work immediately makes
these eorts more accessible to produce and
consume. An e-monograph of the papaya
family (Caricaceae) by Carvalho et al. (2015)
demonstrates how this can look in practice.
Works such as the World Spider Catalog
(2021), AntCat (Bolton 2021), and Brazilian
Flora 2020 (BFG, 2021) are also representative
of how information that traditionally would
be represented in taxonomic monographs
can be represented in an accessible, online
format that can be readily updated.
4 ACCESS: EXPANDING WHO
PARTICIPATES IN AND BENEFITS
FROM MONOGRAPHY
We cannot succeed at documenting
Earth’s biodiversity at the rate that is necessary
without becoming more collaborative and
inclusive in our scientic practice (Costello
et al., 2013). Therefore, we must establish
ecient and inclusive monographic
research communities that broaden the
idea of partners in monography beyond the
traditional academic community, extending
to the expertise of non-academic scientists
(i.e., "parataxonomists" as in Janzen, 2004),
community-based volunteers (e.g., Foster-
Smith & Evans, 2003; MacFadden et al., 2016;
but see Abadie et al., 2008; MacKenzie et al.,
2017), and traditional knowledge-holders
(Huntington, 2000; Mekbib, 2007; Cheng et
al., 2020).
In building monography working
groups, we must integrate plans to center
inclusive practices, incentivize participation,
and deal with inevitable diculties arising
from disagreements, competitiveness,
prejudice, or distrust. In building this
guiding structure, therefore, it is critical
to work with experts in collaboration, such
as organizational psychologists, to ensure
that practices are inclusive of all voices and
partners. Early work phases should include an
initial assessment and a listening phase with
the communities identied as partners, so
that appropriate incentives can be identied
(for a non-monographic example of contact
with communities from project inception,
see Athayde et al., 2016). Logistically, the
approach will likely vary from group to
group, with some groups having more robust
existing communities or resources than
others. Variation will also exist on multiple
biological axes such as habitat type, age of
taxon (i.e., extinct or extant), conservation
status, and size of organism. Socioculturally,
this approach will vary by region, country, or
cultural group for both the monographers,
as well as all the communities involved.
We have identied two existing models
that align well with monographic work: the
Communities of Practice (CoP) model and
the Collective model (Fig. 2).
The Communities of Practice (CoP)
model, inuential in management and
promoted in academia by the Association of
Science and Technology Centers (ASTC), is an
organizing structure for knowledge transfer
and creation (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger
et al., 2002). This model supports individuals
collaboratively engaged in overlapping work,
providing a foundation for monographic

1(1):8328
9January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
Figure 2. Models for monography working groups. a) The Communities of Practice model (Lave and Wenger,
1991; Wenger et al., 2002) supports individuals collaboratively engaged in overlapping work. Individuals with
more intense direct involvement in the work of the monograph would be placed at the center, however this is
uid with individuals increasing their involvement moving toward the center and individuals disengaging with
the collaborative project moving to the periphery. b) The Collective model (Lindkvist, 2005) focuses on mutual
engagement, centralized decision making, and shared methodologies, and emphasizes local knowledge, free
agency, and mutual recognition of diering ways of knowing. Though each individual sees the organism of
focus from a dierent angle, they are all looking at the same biological entity, and have the opportunity to
expand their perception and viewpoint as they interact with one another.
work as carried out by a community,
rather than a single monographer. The
monographic CoP model is imagined as a
series of uid concentric circles (Fig. 2a).
Education or more intense involvement,
such as a graduate degree or intensive
taxonomic study outside of academia,
could lead an individual from the periphery
to the center, or disengagement with the
collaborative project could move a central
actor to the periphery. The core is a steering
group of individuals continually committed
to the monographic project, which is
continuously being redened and improved.
By encouraging broader involvement into
the monographic project, such as through
a dedicated community of iNaturalist users,
the CoP model provides a useful framework
for funneling participation into a central
information source: the living monograph.
The FOSSIL project is an example of the CoP
model being implemented in systematic
work, with collaborative work between
paleontological amateurs, professionals, and
their societies alike (MacFadden et al., 2016).
An expanded CoP model proposed by
Lindkvist (2005), the Collective, may provide
further support in overcoming the historical
inertia of racism and settler colonialism, as
the CoP model can perpetuate inherent power
dynamics based on access to institutional
support and privileged knowledge (a Western
scientic background, Roberts, 2006).
Whereas the CoP model depends on mutual
engagement, centralized decision making,
and shared methodologies, the Collective
model emphasizes local knowledge, free
agency, and mutual recognition of diering
ways of knowing. Depicted visually, the
Collective model is like a group of individuals
gathered around a campre, representing
the organismal group/taxon itself (Fig.
2b). Each element of the collective acts
independently to contribute knowledge

1(1):8328
10January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
to the monograph; i.e., iNaturalist users
sitting at one end of the campre may
contribute to distributional understanding,
molecular phylogeneticists at another may
contribute understanding of evolutionary
relationships, and traditional knowledge-
holders sitting at the circle in equal standing
contribute place-based, linguistic, or ethno-
biological insights. Though each actor may
see the organism in the center of the circle
from a dierent angle, they are all looking
at the same biological entity, and have the
opportunity to expand their perception and
viewpoint as they interact with one another.
With collaboration based on trust rather
than control, collaborative communities
are more likely to ourish in the long term
than communities based on control (for a
non-monographic example, see Athayde
et al., 2016). An example of collaboration
between scientists and the Ngti Kuri in
New Zealand can be found in Nelson et al.
(2019). As a product of this collaboration,
the iwi provided the specic epithet and
received species authority recognition. A
review by Veale et al. (2019) includes case
studies in which taxonomists worked with
indigenous leaders to provide meaningful
names for newly described species in
New Zealand. Furthermore, individuals
can contribute their expertise to more
than one Collective, depending on their
knowledge base and how it scales to dierent
“campres” (i.e., organismal lineages). The
main obstacle to full implementation of the
Collective model in science is the fact that
authorship structures are still inherently
hierarchical, but the CRediT taxonomy can
help identify specic contributions, and
represents a feasible touchstone toward the
changes proposed by Teixeira da Silva (2021).
This interconnectedness of Collectives
will promote greater trust and leverage
relationships to provide sharing of best
practices, tools, and technologies that can
enhance the rate at which monographs are
produced and create a sustainable ecosystem
for multidimensional mentoring across the
tree of life.
5 FINAL REMARKS
Implementing steps addressing these
three barriers of recognition, support and
access will make monographic research
more eective and inclusive. However, we
recognize there are many additional facets
to consider, and these vary according to the
organism, taxonomic unit, and geographical
focus of the monograph. By expanding our
work to include communities of practice,
redening how monographic work is formally
credited, and enhancing our mentorship
practices and collaborations to provide
greater support and access, monography
will begin to be modernized. Collaborations
between the global north and south may also
mitigate barriers to certain resources such as
molecular work, equipment, collections, and
literature. Our direct scientic impacts will
be further improved by incorporating place-
based contexts for biodiversity awareness
and knowledge, engaging stakeholders that
are integral to conservation and mitigation
of biodiversity loss and improving capacity
to accelerate the documentation and
conservation of biodiversity under extinction
threat.
Funding
This paper was a product of the Modernizing
Monography workshops sponsored by NSF
DEB 1839205 to M. Daly and F. Zapata.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank participants in the

1(1):8328
11January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
Modernizing Monography workshops,
whose discussions and feedback formed the
basis of this work.
Aliations Continued:
⁹Centro de Investigación de la Biodiversidad
y Cambio Climático, Universidad
Tecnológica Indoamérica, Quito, Ecuador;
10Department of Biology, Mississippi State
University, Mississippi State, Mississippi,
USA; 11UTCEC Herbarium/Universidad
Regional Amazonica Ikiam, Tena, Ecuador;
12Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey,
United Kingdom; 13Department of Biological
Sciences, The George Washington University,
Washington DC, USA; 14Department of
Integrative Biology and Jepson Herbarium,
University of California, Berkeley, California
94720, USA; 15Universidade de São Paulo,
Instituto de Biociências, Departamento
de Botânica, 05508-900, São Paulo, Brazil;
16cE3c - Centre for Ecology, Evolution
and Environmental Changes / Azorean
Biodiversity Group and Universidade
dos Açores, Faculty of Agrarian and
Environmental Sciences, Terceira, Açores,
Portugal; 17LIBRe - Laboratory for Integrative
Biodiversity Research, Finnish Museum
of Natural History, University of Helsinki,
00014 Helsinki, Finland; 18Bolus Herbarium,
Department of Biological Sciences,
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700,
South Africa; 19Museo Argentino de Ciencias
Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Consejo
Nacional de Investigaciones Cientícas
y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires,
Argentina; 20KwaZulu-Natal Herbarium,
South African National Biodiversity
Institute, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal Province
4007, South Africa; 21Section of Plant Biology
and the L.H. Bailey Hortorium, School of
Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, USA; 22Department
of Geological Sciences, Ohio University,
Athens, Ohio, USA; 23Department of Botany
and Rocky Mountain Herbarium, University
of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA; 24Natural
Sciences, Auckland War Memorial Museum
Tmaki Paenga Hia, Auckland, New Zealand;
25Department of Paleobiology, National
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington DC, USA; 26Division
of Paleontology, American Museum of
Natural History, New York, New York, USA;
27Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit,
University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
References
Abadie, J.C., Andrade, C., Machon, N., & Porcher, E.
(2008). On the use of parataxonomy in biodiversity
monitoring: a case study on wild ora. Biodivers.
Cons., 17(14), 3485-3500. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10531-008-9354-z
Acosta, L.E., & Pérez-González, A. (2019). ¿Quién va
a describir nuestra biodiversidad?: el impedimento
taxonómico frente al Protocolo de Nagoya y las
normativas vigentes. Revista del Museo Argentino de
Ciencias Naturales Nueva Serie, 21(1), 17-27. https://
doi.org/10.22179/REVMACN.21.629
Agnarsson, I., & Kuntner, M. (2007). Taxonomy in
a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in
crisis. Systematic Biology, 56(3), 531-539. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10635150701424546
Akhani, H. (2006). Flora Iranica: Facts and gures
and a list of publications by K. H. Rechinger on
Iran and adjacent. Rostaniha, 7(2), 119–61. https://
www.researchgate.net/profile/Hossein_Akhani/
publication/291874194_Flora_Iranica_Facts_and_
figures_and_a_list_of_publications_by_K_H_
Rechinger_on_Iran_and_adjacent_areas/
links/56d42a8508ae1f46f7cac77f/Flora-Iranica-Facts-
and-figures-and-a-list-of-publications-by-K-H-
Rechinger-on-Iran-and-adjacent-areas.pdf
Allen, L., Brand, A., Scott, J., Altman, M., & Hlava, M.

1(1):8328
12January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
(2014). Credit where credit is due. Nature, 508 (7496),
312-313. https://doi.org/10.1038/508312a
Asase, A., Mzumara-Gawa, T. I., Owino, J. O., Peterson,
A. T., & Saupe, E. (2021). Replacing “parachute science”
with “global science” in ecology and conservation
biology. Cons. Sci. Pract., e517. https://doi.org/10.1111/
csp2.517
Athayde, S., Stepp, J.R., & Ballester, W.C. (2016).
Engaging indigenous and academic knowledge on
bees in the Amazon: implications for environmental
management and transdisciplinary research. J.
Ethnobiol. & Ethnomed., 12(1), 1-19. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13002-016-0093-z
Baker, K., Eichhorn, M.P., & Griths, M., 2019.
Decolonizing eld ecology. Biotropica, 51(3), 288-292.
https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12663
Bebber, D.P., Wood, J.R.I., Barker, C., & Scotland,
R.W. (2014). Author ination masks global capacity
for species discovery in owering plants. New Phytol.
201, 700–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12522
BFG (The Brazil Flora Group). 2018. Brazilian Flora
2020: innovation and collaboration to meet Target
1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
(GSPC). Rodriguésia 69: 1513–1527. https://doi.
org/10.1590/2175-7860201869402
BFG (The Brazil Flora Group). 2021. Flora do Brasil
2020. 1-28 pp. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro. https://doi.org/10.47871/jbrj2021004
Bolton, B. 2021. An online catalog of the ants of the
world. Available from https://antcat.org. (accessed 16
September 2021).
Bortolus, A., (2008). Error cascades in the biological
sciences: the unwanted consequences of using bad
taxonomy in ecology. AMBIO, 37(2), 114-118. https://
doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[114:ECITBS]2.0.
CO;2
Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J.
(2015). Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution,
collaboration, and credit. Learn. Publ., 28(2), 151-155.
https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211
Buck, M. & Hamilton, C. (2011). The Nagoya Protocol
on access to genetic resources and the fair and
equitable sharing of benets arising from their
utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Review of European Community & International
Environmental Law, 20(1), 47-61.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2011.00703.x
Carvalho F.A., Filer, D., Renner, S. (2015) II. Taxonomy
in the Electronic Age: An e-Monograph of the Papaya
Family (Caricaceae) as an Example §. In: Molecular
Phylogeny, Biogeography and an e-Monograph of
the Papaya Family (Caricaceae) as an Example of
Taxonomy in the Electronic Age. Springer Spektrum,
Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10267-
8_2
Cheng, Z., Shu, H., Zhang, S., Luo, B., Gu, R., Zhang,
R., Ji, Y., Li, F., & Long, C. (2020). From folk taxonomy
to species conrmation of Acorus (Acoraceae):
Evidences based on phylogenetic and metabolomic
analyses. Front. Plant. Sci., 11, 965. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00965
Clancy, K.B., Nelson, R.G., Rutherford, J.N., & Hinde,
K. (2014). Survey of academic eld experiences
(SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PloS
One, 9(7), e102172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0102172
Costello, M.J., May, R.M., & Stork, N.E. (2013). Can
we name Earth's species before they go extinct?
Science, 339(6118), 413-416. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1230318
Cui, B.K., Li, H.J., Ji, X., Zhou, J.L., Song, J., Si, J., Yang,
Z.L., & Dai, Y.C. (2019). Species diversity, taxonomy
and phylogeny of Polyporaceae (Basidiomycota) in
China. Fungal Divers., 97(1), 137-392. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13225-019-00427-4
Daglio, L.G., & Dawson, M.N. (2019). Integrative
taxonomy: ghosts of past, present and future. J.
Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK., 99(6), 1237-1246. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0025315419000201
Das, S., & Lowe, M. (2018). Nature read in black
and white: Decolonial approaches to interpreting
natural history collections. Journal of Natural Science
Collections, 6, 4-14. https://norriscenter.ucsc.edu/
events/images/dasandlowe2018_nathist_museums.
pdf
Davies, S.W., Putnam, H.M., Ainsworth, T., Baum,
J.K., Bove, C.B., Crosby, S.C., Côté, I.M., Duplouy,
A., Fulweiler, R.W., Grin, A.J. & Hanley, T.C., 2021.

1(1):8328
13January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to
dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science.
PLoS Biol., 19, p.e3001282. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pbio.3001282
de Carvalho, M.R., Bockmann, F.A., Amorim, D.S.,
Brandão, C.R.F., de Vivo, M., de Figueiredo, J.L.,
Britski, H.A., de Pinna, M.C., Menezes, N.A., Marques,
F.P., & Papavero, N. (2007). Taxonomic impediment
or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on
systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation
paradigm. Evol. Biol., 34, 140-143. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11692-007-9011-6
Demery, A.J.C., & Pipkin, M.A. (2021). Safe eldwork
strategies for at-risk individuals, their supervisors
and institutions. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 5, 5-9. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41559-020-01328-5
Ebach, M.C., Valdecasas, A.G., & Wheeler, Q.D.
(2011). Impediments to taxonomy and users of
taxonomy: accessibility and impact evaluation.
Cladistics, 27, 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-
0031.2011.00348.x
Eichhorn, M.P., Baker, K., & Griths, M. (2020).
Steps towards decolonising biogeography. Frontiers
of Biogeography, 12, e44795. https://doi.org/10.21425/
F5FBG44795
Esposito, L.A., Daly, M., Fujita, M.K., Gorneau, J.A.,
Rapacciuolo, G., Rocha, L., Scheinberg, L., Ware, J.,
Welch, C.K., Young, A., & Bell, R.C. A new framework
for assessing the contributions of professionals in the
natural sciences. Bull. Soc. Syst. Biol. 2022;1(1):8332.
https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8332
Fagan, M.B. (2007). Wallace, Darwin, and the practice
of natural history. J. Hist. Biol., 40, 601-635. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10739-007-9126-8
Fišer, C., Sket, B., Turjak, M., & Trontelj, P. (2009).
Public online databases as a tool of collaborative
taxonomy: A case study on subterranean amphipods.
Zootaxa, 56, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.11646/
zootaxa.2095.1.5
Fernández, F., Guerrero, R.J., & Sánchez-
Restrepo, A.F. (2021) Systematics and diversity
of Neotropical ants. Rev. Colomb. Entomol., 47,
e11082. https://www.researchgate.net/prole/
Fernando-Fernandez-4/publication/350917357_
Systematics_and_diversity_of_Neotropical_ants/
links/6079ace08ea909241e05134d/Systematics-and-
diversity-of-Neotropical-ants.pdf
Foster-Smith, J., & Evans, S.M. (2003). The value of
marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biol.
Conserv., 113(2), 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0006-3207(02)00373-7
Funk, V.A., R. Edwards, & Keeley, S. (2018). The
problem with(out) vouchers. Taxon, 67, 3-5. https://
doi.org/10.12705/671.1
Gafney, L. (2005). The role of the research mentor/
teacher. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34, 52.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/200368570?pq-
origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Giles, S., Jackson, C., & Stephen, N. (2020). Barriers
to eldwork in undergraduate geoscience degrees.
Nat. Rev. Earth & Environment, 1, 77-78. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s43017-020-0022-5
Gotelli, N.J. (2004). A taxonomic wish–list for
community ecology. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B., 359,
585-597. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1443
Grace, O.M., Pérez-Escobar, O.A., Lucas, E.J.,
Vorontsova, M.S., Lewis, G.P., Walker, B.E., Lohmann,
L.G., Knapp, S., Wilkie, P., Sarkinen, T., & Darbyshire,
I. (2021). Botanical monography in the Anthropocene.
Trends Plant Sci., 26, 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tplants.2020.12.018
Granjou, C., Mauz, I., Barbier, M., & Breucker, P.
(2014). Making taxonomy environmentally relevant.
Insights from an all taxa biodiversity inventory.
Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 254-262. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.004
Halme, P., Kuusela, S., & Juslén, A. (2015). Why
taxonomists and ecologists are not, but should be,
carpooling? Biodivers. Conserv., 24, 1831-1836. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0899-3
Haraway, D. (1984). Teddy bear patriarchy: Taxidermy
in the garden of Eden, New York City, 1908-1936.
Social Text, 11, 20-64. https://doi.org/10.2307/466593
Hamilton, C.A., Shockley, F.W., Simmons, R., Smith,
A., Ware, J., & Zaspel, J.M. (2021). The Future for
a prominent taxonomy. Insect Syst. Divers., 5, 2.
https://doi.org/10.1093/isd/ixaa020
Hernandez, P.R., Bloodhart, B., Barnes, R.T., Adams,

1(1):8328
14January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
A.S., Clinton, S.M., Pollack, I., Godfrey, E., Burt, M., &
Fischer, E.V. (2017). Promoting professional identity,
motivation, and persistence: Benets of an informal
mentoring program for female undergraduate
students. PLoS One, 12, p.e0187531. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187531
Huntington, H.P. (2000). Using traditional ecological
knowledge in science: methods and applications.
Ecol. Appl., 10, 1270-1274. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-
0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2
Janzen, D.H. (2004). Setting up tropical biodiversity
for conservation through non-damaging use:
participation by parataxonomists. J. Appl.
Ecol., 41, 181-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2004.00879.x
John, C.M., & Khan, S.B. (2018). Mental health in the
eld. Nat. Geosci., 11, 618-620. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41561-018-0219-0
Lagomarsino, L. P., & Frost, L. A. (2020). The
central role of taxonomy in the study of neotropical
biodiversity. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard., 105, 405-421.
https://doi.org/10.3417/2020601
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511815355
Lindkvist, L. (2005). Knowledge communities and
knowledge collectivities: A typology of knowledge
work in groups. J. Manage. Stud., 42, 1189-1210.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00538.x
Long, Z., Buzzanell, P.M., Kokini, K., Wilson, R.F.,
Batra, J.C., & Anderson, L.B. (2018). Mentoring
women and minority faculty in engineering: A
multidimensional mentoring network approach.
Journal of Women & Minorities in Science &
Engineering, 24, 121-145. https://doi.org/10.1615/
JWomenMinorScienEng.2017019277
MacKenzie, C.M., Murray, G., Primack, R., &
Weihrauch, D. (2017). Lessons from citizen science:
assessing volunteer-collected plant phenology data
with Mountain Watch. Biol. Conserv., 208, 121-126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.027
MacFadden, B.J., Lundgren, L., Crippen, K., Dunckel,
B.A. & Ellis, S. (2016). Amateur paleontological
societies and fossil clubs, interactions with
professional paleontologists, and social paleontology
in the United States. Palaeontol. Electron., 19, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.26879/161E
Madsen-Brooks, L. (2009). Challenging science as
usual: women's participation in American Natural
History Museum work, 1870–1950. J. Womens Hist.,
21, 11-38. https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.0.0076
Magalhães, I.L., Brescovit, A.D., & Santos, A.J.
(2017). Phylogeny of Sicariidae spiders (Araneae:
Haplogynae), with a monograph on Neotropical
Sicarius. Zool. J. Linn. Soc.-Lond., 179, 767-864.
Mandiwana-Neudani, T.G., Little, R.M., Crowe,
T.M., & Bowie, R.C. (2019). Taxonomy, phylogeny
and biogeography of African spurfowls Galliformes,
Phasianidae, Phasianinae, Coturnicini: Pternistis spp.
Ostrich, 90, 145-172. https://doi.org/10.2989/0030652
5.2019.1584925
Mekbib, F. (2007). Infra-specic folk taxonomy
in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) in
Ethiopia: folk nomenclature, classication, and
criteria. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed., 3, 1-18. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-38
Meierotto, S., Sharkey, M. J., Janzen, D. H., Hallwachs,
W., Chapman, E.G., Smith, M.A., & Hebert,
P.D.N (2019). A revolutionary protocol to describe
understudied hyperdiverse taxa and overcome the
taxonomic impediment. Deutsche Entomologische
Zeitschrift, 66, 119–145. https://doi.org/10.3897/
dez.66.34683
Morales, N., Bisbee O’Connell, K., McNulty, S.,
Berkowitz, A., Bowser, G., Giamellaro, M., & Miriti,
M.N. (2020). Promoting inclusion in ecological eld
experiences: Examining and overcoming barriers to
a professional rite of passage. B. Ecol. Soc. Am., 101,
e01742. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1742
Muñoz-Rodríguez, P., Carruthers, T., Wood, J.R.,
Williams, B.R., Weitemier, K., Kronmiller, B.,
Goodwin, Z., Sumadijaya, A., Anglin, N.L., Filer, D., &
Harris, D. (2019). A taxonomic monograph of Ipomoea
integrated across phylogenetic scales. Nat. Plants, 5,
1136-1144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0535-4
Murray, B.R., Martin, L.J., Phillips, M.L., & Pyšek,
P. (2017). Taxonomic perils and pitfalls of dataset

1(1):8328
15January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
assembly in ecology: a case study of the naturalized
Asteraceae in Australia. NeoBiota 34, 1-20. https://
doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.34.11139
Nelson, W.A., Breitwieser, I., Fordyce, E., Bradford-
Grieve, J.M., Penman, D., Roskruge, N., Trnski, T.,
Waugh, S., Webb, C., & Royal Society of New Zealand.
(2015). National taxonomic collections in New
Zealand. Royal Society of New Zealand: Wellington,
New Zealand. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/
bitstream/handle/2292/39740/Appendices-National-
Taxonomic-Collections-Report-web.pdf?sequence=4
Nelson, W. A., Sutherland, J. E., Ringham, S., &
Murupaenga, H. (2019). Dictyota korowai sp. nov.
(Dictyotales, Phaeophyceae) from Manawatwhi/
Three Kings Islands, northern New Zealand,
previously confused with Dictyota intermedia.
Phycologia, 58, 433-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/003
18884.2019.1625256
Neo, M.L., Wabnitz, C.C., Braley, R.D., Heslinga,
G.A., Fauvelot, C., Van Wynsberge, S., Andrefouet, S.,
Waters, C., Tan, A.S.H., Gomez, E.D. & Costello, M.J.
(2017). Giant clams (Bivalvia: Cardiidae: Tridacninae):
a comprehensive update of species and their
distribution, current threats and conservation status.
Oceanogr. Mar. Bio.: An Annual Review, 55, 87-388.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b21944-5
O’Brien, L.T., Bart, H.L., & Garcia, D.M. (2020). Why
are there so few ethnic minorities in ecology and
evolutionary biology? Challenges to inclusion and the
role of sense of belonging. Soc. Psychol. Educ., 23(2),
449-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09538-x
Prathapan, K.D., Pethiyagoda, R., Bawa, K.S., Raven,
P.H., & Rajan, P.D. (2018). When the cure kills—CBD
limits biodiversity research. Science, 360(6396), 1405-
1406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat9844
Pinto, Â.P., Mejdalani, G., Mounce, R., Silveira, L.F.,
Marinoni, L. & Rafael, J.A. (2021). Are publications on
zoological taxonomy under attack? Roy. Soc. Open
Sci., 8(2), 201617. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201617
Prié, V., Puillandre, N., & Bouchet, P. (2012). Bad
taxonomy can kill: molecular reevaluation of Unio
mancus Lamarck, 1819 (Bivalvia: Unionidae) and
its accepted subspecies. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ec.,
(405), 8. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2012014
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice.
J. Manage. Stud., 43(3), 623-639. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00618.x
Rodman, J.E., & Cody, J.H. (2003). The taxonomic
impediment overcome: NSF's partnerships for
enhancing expertise in taxonomy (PEET) as a model.
Syst. Bio., 52(3), 428-435. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/3651119
Roy, R. (2018). Science still bears the ngerprints of
colonialism. Smithsonian Magazine, 219, 220.
Russell, G.M., & Horne, S.G. (2009). Finding
equilibrium: Mentoring, sexual orientation, and
gender identity. Prof. Psychol.-Res. Pr., 40(2), 194.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011860
Sharkey, M., Brown, B., Baker, A., & Mutanen, M. (2021)
Response to Zamani et al. (2020): The omission of
critical data in the pursuit of “revolutionary” methods
to accelerate the description of species. ZooKeys 1033,
191-201. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1033.66186
Sheets-Pyenson, S. (1988). Cathedrals of Science: the
Development of Colonial Natural History Museums
During the Late Nineteenth Century (p. 21). Montreal:
McGill-Queen's University Press.
Sheldon, A.L. (2016). Mutualism (carpooling) of
ecologists and taxonomists. Biodivers. Conserv., 25,
187-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1032-3
Stefanoudis, P.V., Licuanan, W.Y., Morrison, T.H.,
Talma, S., Veitayaki, J., & Woodall, L.C. (2021). Turning
the tide of parachute science. Curr. Biol., 31(4),
184-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.029
Steiner, F.M., Pautasso, M., Zettel, H., Moder,
K., Arthofer, W., & Schlick-Steiner, B.C. (2015).
A falsication of the citation impediment in the
taxonomic literature. Syst. Bio., 64(5), 860-868.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syv026
Tancoigne, E., & Ollivier, G. (2017). Evaluating the
progress and needs of taxonomy since the Convention
on Biological Diversity: going beyond the rate of
species description. Aust. Syst. Bot., 30, 326-336.
https://doi.org/10.1071/SB16017
Tachibana, C. (2019). Community science, not
just a hobby. Science, 365, 936-940. https://www.
sciencemag.org/features/2019/08/community-
science-not-just-hobby

1(1):8328
16January 2022 https://doi.org/10.18061/bssb.v1i1.8328
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2021). Multiple co-rst authors,
co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a
synthesis of shared authorship credit. Online Inform.
Rev., Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://
doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2020-0219
Tilman, D., Clark, M., Williams, D.R., Kimmel, K.,
Polasky, S., & Packer, C. (2017). Future threats to
biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature,
546, 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22900
Valdecasas, A.G., Peláez, M.L. & Wheeler, Q.D.
(2014) What’s in a (biological) name? The wrath of
Lord Rutherford. Cladistics, 30, 215–223. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cla.12035
Veale, A.J., de Lange, P., Buckley, T.R., Cracknell,
M., Hohaia, H., Parry, K., Raharaha-Nehemia, K.,
Reihana, K., Seldon, D., Tawiri, K. & Walker, L. (2019).
Using te reo Mori and ta re Moriori in taxonomy.
New Zeal. J. Ecol., 43, pp.1-11. https://doi.org/10.20417/
nzjecol.43.30
Vink, C.J., Paquin, P., & Cruickshank, R.H. (2012).
Taxonomy and irreproducible biological science.
BioScience, 62, 451-452. https://doi.org/10.1525/
bio.2012.62.5.3
Wägele, H., Klussmann-Kolb, A., Kuhlmann, M.,
Haszprunar, G., Lindberg, D., Koch, A., &
Wägele, J.W. (2011). The taxonomist-an endangered
race. A practical proposal for its survival. Front. Zool.,
8, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-8-25
Wen, J., Ickert-Bond, S.M., Appelhans, M.S., Dorr, L.J.
& Funk, V.A. (2015). Collections-based systematics:
Opportunities and outlook for 2050. J. Syst. & Evol.,
53, 477-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12181
Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A., & Snyder, W. (2002).
Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to
managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
World Spider Catalog (2021). World Spider Catalog.
Version 22.5. Natural History Museum Bern, online
at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, accessed on 9 September 2021.
https://doi.org/10.24436/2
Zamani, A., Vahtera, V., Sääksjärvi, I.E., & Scherz,
M.D. (2021). The omission of critical data in the
pursuit of “revolutionary” methods to accelerate the
description of species. Syst. Entomol., 46: 1–4. https://
doi.org/10.1111/syen.12444
Submitted: 20 May 2021
Editor: Felipe Zapata
Managing Editor: Dinah Ward
The Bulletin of the Society of Systematic Biologists
publishes peer reviewed research in systematics,
taxonomy, and related disciplines for SSB members.
The Bulletin is an Open Access Gold publication.
All articles are published without article process-
ing or page charges. The Bulletin is made possible
by a partnership with the Publishing Services de-
partment at The Ohio State University Libraries. In-
formation about SSB membership is available at
https://www.systbio.org. Questions about the Bul-
letin can be sent to Founding Editor Bryan Carstens.