ArticlePLoS biology2020
Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world's species.
Article in PLoS biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taxonomic inflation in fish systematics: A critical review with illustrative evidence assessment and integrative case study of the Salmo trutta Complex.Journal of fish biology · 2026Review
- Measuring the quality of species list governance.Bioscience · 2026Article
- Integrating images, sounds, citizen science and AI to assess the biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest of Brazil.PloS one · 2026Article
- A user-centric framework for harmonizing scientific name usage.Biodiversity data journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Species Diagnosis and DNA Taxonomy.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Widespread support for a global species list with a formal governance system.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Unified and pluralistic ideals for data sharing and reuse in biodiversity.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023Article
- PhyloMatcher: a tool for resolving conflicts in taxonomic nomenclature.Bioinformatics advances · 2023Article
- Beneficial and biocontrol effects ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Six steps for building a technological knowledge base for future taxonomic work.National science review · 2022Article
- Relevance of prokaryotic subspecies in the age of genomics.New microbes and new infections · 2022Article
- Article
- The World Checklist of Vascular Plants, a continuously updated resource for exploring global plant diversity.Scientific data · 2021Article
- Recognizing species as a new focus of virus research.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
- Recommendations for connecting molecular sequence and biodiversity research infrastructures through ELIXIR.F1000Research · 2021Article
- The Taxon Hypothesis Paradigm-On the Unambiguous Detection and Communication of Taxa.Microorganisms · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lists of species underpin many fields of human endeavour, but there are currently no universally accepted principles for deciding which biological species should be accepted when there are alternative taxonomic treatments (and, by extension, which scientific names should be applied to those species). As improvements in information technology make it easier to communicate, access, and aggregate biodiversity information, there is a need for a framework that helps taxonomists and the users of taxonomy decide which taxa and names should be used by society whilst continuing to encourage taxonomic research that leads to new species discoveries, new knowledge of species relationships, and the refinement of existing species concepts. Here, we present 10 principles that can underpin such a governance framework, namely (i) the species list must be based on science and free from nontaxonomic considerations and interference, (ii) governance of the species list must aim for community support and use, (iii) all decisions about list composition must be transparent, (iv) the governance of validated lists of species is separate from the governance of the names of taxa, (v) governance of lists of accepted species must not constrain academic freedom, (vi) the set of criteria considered sufficient to recognise species boundaries may appropriately vary between different taxonomic groups but should be consistent when possible, (vii) a global list must balance conflicting needs for currency and stability by having archived versions, (viii) contributors need appropriate recognition, (ix) list content should be traceable, and (x) a global listing process needs both to encompass global diversity and to accommodate local knowledge of that diversity. We conclude by outlining issues that must be resolved if such a system of taxonomic list governance and a unified list of accepted scientific names generated are to be universally adopted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.