Measuring and explaining disagreement in bird taxonomy
Abstract
Species lists play an important role in biology and practical domains like conservation, legislation, biosecurity and trade regulation. However, their effective use by non-specialist scientific and societal users is sometimes hindered by disagreements between competing lists. While it is well-known that such disagreements exist, it remains unclear how prevalent they are, what their nature is, and what causes them. In this study, we argue that these questions should be investigated using methods based on taxon concept rather than methods based on Linnaean names, and use such a concept-based method to quantify disagreement about bird classification and investigate its relation to research effort. We found that there was disagreement about 38% of all groups of birds recognized as a species, more than three times as much as indicated by previous measures. Disagreement about the delimitation of bird groups was the most common kind of conflict, outnumbering disagreement about nomenclature and disagreement about rank. While high levels of conflict about rank were associated with lower levels of research effort, this was not the case for conflict about the delimitation of bird groups. This suggests that taxonomic disagreement cannot be resolved simply by increasing research effort.
References
Agapow P.-M., Bininda-Emonds O.R.P., Crandall K.A., Gittleman J.L., Mace G.M., Marshall J.C. & Purvis A. 2004. The impact of species concept on biodiversity studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology 79 (2): 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1086/383542
Auer T., Barker S., Borgmann K., Charnoky M., Childs D., Curtis J., Davies I., Downie I., Fink D., Fredericks T., Ganger J., Gerbracht J., Hanks C., Hochachka W., Iliff M., Imani J., Johnston A., Lenz T., Levatich T., ... & Wood C. undated. EOD – eBird Observation Dataset. https://doi.org/10.15468/aomfnb
Bacis E. 2021. WOS. Ver. 0.2.7. Available from https://pypi.org/project/wos/ [accessed 16 May 2024].
Berendsohn W.G. 1995. The concept of “potential taxa” in databases. Taxon 44 (2): 207–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/1222443
Birdlife International 2020. Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International digital checklist of the birds of the world. Version 5. Available from http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/Taxonomy/HBW-BirdLife_Checklist_v5_Dec20.zip [accessed 16 May 2024].
Callaghan C.T., Poore A.G.B., Hofmann M., Roberts C.J. & Pereira H.M. 2021. Large-bodied birds are over-represented in unstructured citizen science data. Scientific Reports 11 (1): 19073. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98584-7
Cinelli C., Forney A. & Pearl J. 2022. A crash course in good and bad controls. Sociological Methods & Research: 00491241221099552. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221099552
Clements J.F., Schulenberg T.S., Iliff M.J., Billerman, S.M., Fredericks T.A., Sullivan B.L. & Wood C.L. 2019. The eBird/Clements Checklist of Birds of the World: v2019. Available from https://www.birds.cornell.edu/clementschecklist/introduction/updateindex/overview-august-2019/2019-citation-checklist-download/ [accessed 16 May 2024].
Conix S. & Cuypers V. 2023. Dataset for ‘Measuring and explaining disagreement about bird taxonomy’. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10078307
Conix S., Garnett S.T., Thiele K.R., Christidis L., van Dijk P.P., Bánki O.S., Barik S.K., Buckeridge J.S., Costello M.J., Hobern D., Kirk P.M., Lien A., Nikolaeva S., Pyle R.L., Thomson S.A., Zhang Z.-Q. & Zachos F.E. 2021. Towards a global list of accepted species III. Independence and stakeholder inclusion. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 21: 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-021-00496-x
Correia R.A., Jepson P.R., Malhado A.C.M. & Ladle R.J. 2016. Familiarity breeds content: assessing bird species popularity with culturomics. PeerJ 4: e1728. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1728
Correia R.A., Jepson P., Malhado A.C.M. & Ladle R.J. 2017. Internet scientific name frequency as an indicator of cultural salience of biodiversity. Ecological Indicators 78: 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.052
Correia R.A., Jarić I., Jepson P., Malhado A.C.M., Alves J.A. & Ladle R.J. 2018. Nomenclature instability in species culturomic assessments: why synonyms matter. Ecological Indicators 90: 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.059
Cuypers V., Reydon T.A.C. & Artois T. 2022. Deceiving insects, deceiving taxonomists? Making theoretical sense of taxonomic disagreement in the European orchid genus Ophrys. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 56: 125686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2022.125686
De Queiroz K. 2005. A unified concept of species and its consequences for the future of taxonomy. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 56 (supp. 1): 196–215. Available from https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/4507 [accessed 14 May 2024].
Dickinson E. & Christidis L. 2014. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. Fourth Edition. Aves Press, Eastbourne, UK.
Franz N., Peet R.K. & Weakley A. 2008. On the use of taxonomic concepts in support of biodiversity research and taxonomy. In: Wheeler Q.D. (ed.) The New Taxonomy: 63–87. Systematics Association Special Volume, CRC Press, Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420008562
Franz N.M., Pier N.M., Reeder D.M., Chen M., Yu S., Kianmajd P., Bowers S. & Ludäscher B. 2016. Two influential primate classifications logically aligned. Systematic Biology 65 (4): 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw023
Garnett S.T. & Christidis L. 2007. Implications of changing species definitions for conservation purposes. Bird Conservation International 17 (3): 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270907000809
Garnett S.T. & Christidis L. 2017. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature 546 (7656): 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/546025a
Garnett S.T., Christidis L., Conix S., Costello M.J., Zachos F.E., Bánki O.S., Bao Y., Barik S.K., Buckeridge J.S., Hobern D., Lien A., Montgomery N., Nikolaeva S., Pyle R.L., Thomson S.A., Dijk P.P. van, Whalen A., Zhang Z.-Q. & Thiele K.R. 2020. Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species. PLOS Biology 18 (7): e3000736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736
Gill F., Donsker D. & Rasmussen P.C. (eds) 2021. IOC World Bird List (v11.2). https://doi.org/10.14344/IOC.ML.11.2
Google 2023. Google API Client Library for Python. Available from https://github.com/googleapis/google-api-python-client [accessed 16 May 2024].
Hannak A., Sapiezynski P., Molavi Kakhki A., Krishnamurthy B., Lazer D., Mislove A. & Wilson C. 2013. Measuring personalization of web search. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web: 527–538. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
Harris C.R., Millman K.J., van der Walt S.J., Gommers R., Virtanen P., Cournapeau D., Wieser E., Taylor J., Berg S., Smith N.J., Kern R., Picus M., Hoyer S., van Kerkwijk M.H., Brett M., Haldane A., del Río J.F., Wiebe M., Peterson P., ... & Oliphant T.E. 2020. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585 (7825): 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
Hunter J.D. 2007. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering 9 (3): 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
Isaac N.J.B., Mallet J. & Mace G.M. 2004. Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19 (9): 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.06.004
Jarić I., Correia R.A., Roberts D.L., Gessner J., Meinard Y. & Courchamp F. 2019. On the overlap between scientific and societal taxonomic attentions — Insights for conservation. Science of the Total Environment 648: 772–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.198
Johnston A., Matechou E. & Dennis E.B. 2023. Outstanding challenges and future directions for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14 (1): 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13834
Kruschke J. 2014. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: a Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Academic Press.
Kumar R., Carroll C., Hartikainen A. & Martin O. 2019. ArviZ a unified library for exploratory analysis of Bayesian models in Python. Journal of Open Source Software 4 (33): 1143. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01143
Ladle R.J., Jepson P., Correia R.A. & Malhado A.C.M. 2019. A culturomics approach to quantifying the salience of species on the global internet. People and Nature 1 (4): 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10053
Lepage D., Vaidya G. & Guralnick R. 2014. Avibase – a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts. ZooKeys 420: 117–135. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.420.7089
Lien A.M., Conix S., Zachos F.E., Christidis L., van Dijk P.P., Bánki O.S., Barik S.K., Buckeridge J.S., Costello M.J., Hobern D., Montgomery N., Nikolaeva S., Pyle R.L., Thiele K., Thomson S.A., Zhang Z.-Q. & Garnett S.T. 2021. Towards a global list of accepted species IV: overcoming fragmentation in the governance of taxonomic lists. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 21: 645–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-021-00499-8
McClure C.J.W., Lepage D., Dunn L., Anderson D.L., Schulwitz S.E., Camacho L., Robinson B.W., Christidis L., Schulenberg T.S., Iliff M.J., Rasmussen P.C. & Johnson J. 2020. Towards reconciliation of the four world bird lists: hotspots of disagreement in taxonomy of raptors. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 287 (1929): 20200683. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.0683
McElreath R. 2016. Statistical Rethinking: a Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton.
McKinney W. 2010. Data structures for statistical computing in Python. Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference: 56–61. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a
Neate-Clegg M.H.C., Blount J.D. & Şekercioğlu Ç.H. 2021. Ecological and biogeographical predictors of taxonomic discord across the world’s birds. Global Ecology and Biogeography 30 (6): 1258–1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13300
van Ravenzwaaij D., Cassey P. & Brown S.D. 2018. A simple introduction to Markov Chain Monte–Carlo sampling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25 (1): 143–154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1015-8
Salvatier J., Wiecki T.V. & Fonnesbeck C. 2016. Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3. PeerJ Computer Science 2: e55. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55
Satler J.D., Carstens B.C. & Hedin M. 2013. Multilocus species delimitation in a complex of morphologically conserved trapdoor spiders (Mygalomorphae, Antrodiaetidae, Aliatypus). Systematic Biology 62 (6): 805–823. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt041
Scher C.L. & Clark J.S. 2023. Species traits and observer behaviors that bias data assimilation and how to accommodate them. Ecological Applications 33 (3): e2815. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2815
Sterner B., Witteveen J. & Franz N. 2020. Coordinating dissent as an alternative to consensus classification: insights from systematics for bio-ontologies. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 42 (1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-0300-z
Thiele K.R., Conix S., Pyle R.L., Barik S.K., Christidis L., Costello M.J., van Dijk P.P., Kirk P., Lien A., Thomson S.A., Zachos F.E., Zhang Z.-Q. & Garnett S.T. 2021. Towards a global list of accepted species I. Why taxonomists sometimes disagree, and why this matters. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 21: 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-021-00495-y
Thomson S.A., Thiele K., Conix S., Christidis L., Costello M.J., Hobern D., Nikolaeva S., Pyle R.L., van Dijk P.P., Weaver H., Zachos F.E., Zhang Z.-Q. & Garnett S.T. 2021. Towards a global list of accepted species II. Consequences of inadequate taxonomic list governance. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 21 (4): 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-021-00518-8
Tobias J.A., Donald P.F., Martin R.W., Butchart S.H.M. & Collar N.J. 2021. Performance of a points-based scoring system for assessing species limits in birds. Ornithology 138 (2): ukab016. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithology/ukab016
Trimble M.J. & van Aarde R.J. 2012. Geographical and taxonomic biases in research on biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Ecosphere 3 (12): art119. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00299.1
Uva V., Päckert M., Cibois A., Fumagalli L. & Roulin A. 2018. Comprehensive molecular phylogeny of barn owls and relatives (Family: Tytonidae), and their six major Pleistocene radiations. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 125: 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.03.013
Uyar A. 2009. Investigation of the accuracy of search engine hit counts. Journal of Information Science 35 (4): 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551509103598
Waskom M., Gelbart M., Botvinnik O., Ostblom J., Hobson P., Lukauskas S., Gemperline D.C., Augspurger T., Halchenko Y., Warmenhoven J., Cole J.B., Hoeven E. ter, Ruiter J. de, Vanderplas J., Hoyer S., Pye C., Miles A., Swain C., Meyer K., ... & O’Kane D. 2022. mwaskom/seaborn: v0.12.2 (December 2022). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7495530
Wheeler T. 2014. The concept of species with constant reference to killer whales. Washington Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 4 (1): 250–284.
Copyright (c) 2024 Stijn Conix, Vincent Cuypers, Charles H. Pence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Copyright Notices
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are NOT ALLOWED TO post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to taxonomic issues.
