A new international journal for rapid publication of botanical taxonomy

In this article, environmental and climate practices in science and natural history museums in Türkiye are presented and discussed. While environmental and climate problems are global issues, they have local roots. As environmental issues are related to human activities and museums play a societal role, it is important to examine practices and approaches of museums in relation to the environment. Operations and practices of natural history and science museums in Türkiye, including educational activities, are important elements in communicating the risks of vulnerable environmental issue. This study outlines the environmental practices of the science and natural history museums of Türkiye which are commonly accepted as reliable providers of information to engage with audiences for action towards environmental challenges. Documentary research was conducted for the study. When the environmental practices and approaches are reviewed, it is seen that natural history museums function basically as research areas. Still, they have public education roles and organize educational activities about natural history, biodiversity and environment. While public education is one of the roles of natural history museums besides their conventional functions like collecting, conserving, researching and exhibiting, science centers are institutions dedicated to public education. Since science centers are mostly supported by municipalities, it can be said that they operate in a more sustainable and holistic way. Also, it is seen that their environmental reach-out programs offer a wider range. Based on data, we claim that collaboration with municipalities has an effect on the environmental activities and perspectives of museums. Also, climate-context works encourage museum community to make interdisciplinary works across the world. By presenting the current environmental and climate practices in natural history and science museums in Türkiye, it is aimed that the article can provide collaboration among institutions and advance the discussions among museums in the context of environment and climate.

Global biological data poses particular challenges for organizing and managing intellectual property. Issues concerning the industrial property branch, such as patent protection, have generally not been the librarian's concern. However, for the librarian and information management professional specializing in the organization of biological knowledge, the knowledge domain includes intellectual resources eligible for industrial property rights protection. An intellectual resource can be deemed industrial property eligible for rights protection if the resource is a patentable invention and has an industrial application. Traditionally, libraries and natural history museums have been concerned primarily with the copyright branch of intellectual property as it pertains to access to intellectual resources. It is primarily the first sale doctrine and the fair use of copyrighted resources that enable libraries and museums to meet the educational and information organization and dissemination goals of their charter. With respect to the organization of biological knowledge, the intellectual property issues include the traditional issues surrounding the copyright branch as well as issues pertaining to industrial property protection. Access for current and future biological knowledge management has become more complicated. This is not to say that the intellectual property questions on the immediate horizon for biological knowledge management are necessarily new questions or are necessarily unique to the library and information science discipline. But the following issues concerning access to intellectual resources are new questions for library and information management practitioners and are of particular concern for those specializing in the organization of biological knowledge. The definition of biological objects is important for whether an intellectual resource falls under copyright protection or is eligible for industrial property protection. In other words, is the biological object a discovery or an invention? This definitional distinction is important because it affects whether the biological object is patentable and thus eligible for industrial property protection. That is, if the biological object is considered a discovery, then the biological object is not the scientist's creation. The creation of the scientist is the publication disclosing the discovery. Hence, copyright applies to the published findings and the protection of intellectual property rights is protection of the copyright. This protection is particularly important in biology where a person's name is associated as the authority for the first published treatment of a new species. On the other hand, if the biological object itself is considered a creation of the scientist, then the biological object is an invention and is a potentially patentable object. Whereas the scientist's publication disclosing the invention would fall under copyright protection, the issuance and protection of patents fall under the industrial property branch of intellectual property rights: the protection of intellectual property rights is protection of the industrial property, the invention. The classification of the biological object is not simply a matter of differing epistemological positions. A May 2002 Science article, "DuPont Ups the Ante on Use of Harvard's OncoMouse," details a recent intellectual property debate between private enterprise and academic scientific research where the biological object itself is a patented "mouse engineered to develop cancers." Another Science article, "Patents, Secrecy, and DNA," published in 2001, indicates "more than 25,000 DNA-based patents were issued by the end of 2000" on various genomics inventions, including patents for gene fragments and sequences. It is, as it were, a matter of the relations between publicly supported scientific research and commercial for-profit ventures in free-market capitalist economies. For the library and information management practitioner, the disposition of the biological object — whether it be discovery or invention — affects the approach to and management of access. For management of access to copyrighted creations, the first sale doctrine and fair use principle would certainly seem applicable guidelines. Although access to copyrighted creations becomes more complex when it involves property rights for physical objects in natural history museums. Museums may "own" (with caveats discussed below) the specimens in their collections but if these objects are digitized, the museums must claim copyright protection for the digital representations. Some museums may fear that even with the copyright protection regime, they may lose control over the value of their collections. In contrast, the organization of information to support patent protection of inventions would entail denying unauthorized access, as denial of access for unauthorized parties is the underlying assumption that makes patent protection possible. The Convention on Biological Diversity's "Report on the Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Implementation of Access and Benefit-Sharing" (www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/abs/abswg-01/official/abswg-01-04-en.doc) is exclusively concerned with the industrial property branch of intellectual property protection. The 2001 report makes plain that for international biological information networks, the most pressing intellectual property issues revolve around patents and patent procedures, adjudicatingcontesting claims for rights and protection, and trade agreements. All factor into decisions about the organization and management of biological knowledge, and all pertain to the commercial potential of biological resources. In addition, the Convention on Biological Diversity specifically focuses their attention on and makes recommendations for addressing the often-conflicting interests between developed and developing countries with respect to commercialization of biological resources. Natural history museums hold many specimens of species from around the world, as collectors from industrialized countries have aggressively gathered specimens from developing countries over the past 300 years. The potential financial consequences are enormous as many of these materials, such as botanical pharmaceuticals, are patentable. The Convention's Panel of Experts on Access and Benefit-Sharing identified four key intellectual property issues under their auspices: prior informed consent; traditional knowledge related to genetic resources; access and benefit-sharing agreements; and scope, prior art and monitoring. Library and information management practitioners would likely be concerned with all four, as each involves questions of information and knowledge organization and management. Prior informed consent pertains to incorporating patent application procedures for documenting "identification of the source of genetic material used in the development of subject matter which is to be protected by intellectual property rights" and "proof of the prior informed consent of the competent national authority of the provider country." Essentially, the panel maintained that holders of traditional knowledge and of the rights to innovations based on traditional knowledge must give informed consent prior to granting access to genetic resources, and that such consent must be documented. The panel's report on traditional knowledge related to genetic resources defines "traditional knowledge," discusses the limits of property protection for traditional knowledge and proposes the sui generis model for protection of traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge related to genetic resources is defined as "manifestations of knowledge and innovation" evidenced in indigenous creative practices, classifications systems, empirical observations and environmental management practices. Because of the collective nature of and lack of systematic documentation about traditional knowledge, the panel considered whether intellectual property rights are applicable to traditional knowledge; as argued by pharmaceutical industry interests, the panel recognized that intellectual property rights, in particular patents, could be viewed as and used toward protection of traditional knowledge. The panel recommended implementation of sui generis systems for protection of traditional knowledge rights. Among their proposals for legislation were the recognition of ancestral community rights; recognition that intellectual property rights can be collective; and the "distinction between the rights over genetic resources (where vested in the State) and rights over knowledge associated with such resources (vested in local and indigenous customs)." Components of sui generis systems for protection could include systematic documentation of traditional knowledge, traditional knowledge registries and various patent and innovation systems, all of which present opportunities for library and information science management. The panel discusses various access and benefit-sharing agreements at length, highlighting various possible arrangements between countries, industries, ministries and legal apparatuses. Access, for the Convention's purposes, tends to mean access to the actual genetic or biological resources for cultivation, harvesting and exploitation, and benefit-sharing means the protection of and compensation for the holders of intellectual property rights to such genetic or biological resources. In other words, access and benefit-sharing agreements pertain primarily to legal and binding financial arrangements between interested parties across the globe. How such legal and financial agreements affect library and information management practitioners seems to depend upon the particular situations as determined by employers, be they governmental, non-profit or for-profit organizations. Related to, but different than, prior informed consent is prior art. The Convention's panel and the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore are both exploring and advocating recognition that traditional knowledge be viewed as prior art. The categorization of traditional knowledge as prior art affords opportunities for library and information management practitioners to compile existing traditional knowledge literature; create registries for and repositories of traditional knowledge; and examine ways to improve search and access to traditional knowledge documents, collections and databases. This information could be organized around the species descriptions used in western taxonomy or in the taxonomy assigned by the holders of traditional knowledge about the species in the native environment. One of the most interesting intellectual property problems facing current and future biodiversity knowledge management concerns relations between developed and developing countries and involves repatriation of biological intellectual resources. While international and national policy decisions regarding repatriation are beyond the scope of the individual library and information management practitioner, the practitioner should be aware that repatriation law, agreements and treaties will have ramifications for organizing and providing access to biological resources. The global mission of many biodiversity projects to identify, name and classify the world's species certainly warrants attention to repatriation issues. The emphasis Global Biodiversity Information Facility ( www.gbif.org/GBIF_org/what_is_gbif) places on data repatriation suggests the issue is crucial for the successful organization and management of a global biodiversity information network. The repatriation of biological intellectual resources differs from the repatriation of refugees, of human remains and of cultural heritage objects typically housed in developed countries' museums and libraries. Whereas the actual persons, actual remains or actual cultural heritage objects are returned to their respective countries of origin, the actual biological specimens are not. Rather, as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) working group on biological informatics points out, with respect to biodiversity resources, repatriation concerns the repatriation of data generated about the specimen. In other words, a data surrogate replaces the original biological specimen as the object repatriated. The original biological specimen is held and maintained by the natural history museum, organization or institution that generated the specimen data. In this manner, the natural history museum seems to serve a custodial role, as opposed to explicitly claiming ownership of the specimen, although claims for ownership seem implied through maintaining possession of the original biological specimen. Data repatriation poses an intriguing problem not only for governors, ministers and administrators of state, but also for scholars interested in globalization, the world economy, geopolitics and post-colonialism as data repatriation makes evident the historical, political milieu in which the present state of biological knowledge is immersed, and perhaps, from whence it originates. For data repatriation to be successful, the data repatriated must conform to internationally recognized standards and exist in formats of demonstrable value to the country of origin. Moreover, the replacement of the original specimen with its data surrogate must be satisfactory to all international parties involved. This question will probably be asked of natural history museums in developed countries: if the data surrogate be the virtual equivalent of the specimen, why not repatriate the specimen to the country of origin, generally a developing country, and maintain the surrogate in the developed country? In principle, unlike cultural artifacts, it would be possible to gather another specimen of the same species from its native environment. It is probably an understatement to remark that identifying, naming and classifying all of the world's species is a gargantuan, utopian goal. But that is the goal toward which many in the biological sciences devote their working lives. Achieving progress toward that goal necessitates significant contributions from many allied disciplines and practitioners, including those that organize and manage access to all of the actual current and possible future intellectual manifestations of biological knowledge. While much work remains to be done and many unknowns have yet to unfold, one thing is certain: where there are intellectual resources to organize and manage, there are intellectual property issues that affect how the work of library and information management practitioners proceed. We need to be aware of the intellectual property issues debated, the many parties and varied interests involved, and the organizational and managerial possibilities for enabling the desired type of access. This is part of our contribution toward knowledge of our vast world. Gwen L. Williams is currently enrolled in the Master's program at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Museum visitors and non-visitors in Germany: A representative survey

Recommandations pour la pratique clinique

Natural history museums are unique spaces for interdisciplinary research and for educational innovation. Through extensive exhibits and public programming and by hosting rich communities of amateurs, students, and researchers at all stages of their careers, they provide a place-based window to focus on integration of science and discovery, as well as a locus for community engagement. At the same time, like a synthesis radio telescope, when joined together through emerging digital resources, the global community of museums (the ‘Global Museum’) is more than the sum of its parts, allowing insights and answers to diverse biological, environmental, and societal questions at the global scale, across eons of time, and spanning vast diversity across the Tree of Life. We argue that, whereas natural history collections and museums began with a focus on describing the diversity and peculiarities of species on Earth, they are now increasingly leveraged in new ways that significantly expand their impact and relevance. These new directions include the possibility to ask new, often interdisciplinary questions in basic and applied science; inform biomimetic design; and even provide solutions to climate change, global health and food security challenges. As institutions, they are incubators for cutting-edge research in biology and simultaneously protect core infrastructure for present and future societal needs. In this perspective, we discuss challenges to the realization of the full potential of natural history collections and museums to serve society. After reviewing collections and types of museums, including local and global efforts, we discuss the value of specimens and the importance of observations. We then focus on mapping and modelling of museum data (including place-based approaches and discovery), and explore the main projects, platforms and databases enabling this. We also explore ways in which improved infrastructure will allow higher quality science and increased opportunities for interdisciplinary research and communication, as well as new uses of collections. Finally, we aim to improve relevant protocols for the long-term storage of specimens and tissues, ensuring proper connection with tomorrow’s technologies and hence further increasing the relevance of natural history museums.

Free‐ranging domestic cats Felis catus, from owned pets to feral cats, impact biodiversity through predation, fear effects, competition, disease and hybridization. Scientific knowledge regarding these impacts has recently increased, making it timely to assess the role of nature conservation legislation in this connection. We do so with particular regard to the obligations of governments around the world under international wildlife law. First, we provide an overview of current knowledge, based on a literature review, concerning the ways in which domestic cats impact wildlife; the resulting effects on native species’ populations and ecosystems; and available strategies for addressing these issues. In light of this knowledge, using standard legal research methodology, we then identify and interpret relevant legal instruments, with a particular focus on international wildlife treaties. Lastly, we identify and assess factors that may influence the implementation of relevant obligations. The outcomes of this analysis indicate that numerous legal obligations of relevance to free‐ranging domestic cats already apply under global treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Migratory Species and World Heritage Convention, and a range of regional legal instruments for biodiversity conservation. Of particular significance are obligations concerning (a) invasive alien species; (b) protected areas and (c) protected species. Many national authorities around the world are currently required, under international law, to adopt and implement policies aimed at preventing, reducing or eliminating the biodiversity impacts of free‐ranging domestic cats, in particular by (a) removing feral and other unowned cats from the landscape to the greatest extent possible and (b) restricting the outdoor access of owned cats. Factors that can influence or impair the application of these obligations include considerations of feasibility, scientific uncertainty, the interests of cat owners and the (perceived) interests of domestic cats themselves. Even if such factors may to some extent explain why many authorities have hitherto failed to take effective action to address the threats posed by free‐ranging domestic cats, from a legal perspective these factors provide little ground for justifying non‐compliance with international wildlife law. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

We present the first comprehensive review of 62 migratory shorebird species in Mongolia, covering their ecological status, IUCN assessments at regional or national levels, population trends, threats, and conservation measures. Mongolia hosts a total of 62 shorebird species from twenty-two genera and seven families, with six species classified as globally threatened: the Critically Endangered Sociable Lapwing, the Endangered Siberian Sandplover, the Far Eastern Curlew, the Great Knot, and the Vulnerable Sharp-Tailed Sandpiper. Both national and global IUCN Red List assessments highlight Mongolia’s significance as a breeding and passage migrating site for globally threatened and Near-Threatened shorebirds. Species richness is higher in northern regions compared to the south, with the highest diversity found in areas with complex aquatic ecosystems. Global population trends indicate a decline in 61% of species, with 18% remaining stable, 16% of unknown status, and 5% increasing. At the national level, most species are stable (61%), 34% status is unknown, and 5% are decreasing. Anthropogenic-induced threats, including habitat loss and degradation, pollution, disturbance, and harvesting, pose significant risks to 69% of species, while natural disasters affect 11%. Additionally, 8% of species are impacted by accidental mortality and intrinsic factors, and 5% by changes in native species. Despite these threats, no specific conservation action plans exist for shorebirds in Mongolia. However, general conservation measures are in place, such as environmental and fauna protection laws, regulations on foreign trade in endangered species, and the establishment of protected areas under governmental resolutions. Mongolia also participates in international conventions like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Ramsar, and Migratory Species (CMS), and has developed national red lists, red books, and publications such as “A Summary Conservation Action Plan for Mongolian Birds”, “Important Bird Areas” to support conservation efforts.

IntroductionHistoric museum collections hold a wealth of biodiversity data that are essential to our understanding of the rapidly changing natural world. Novel curatorial practices are needed to extract and digitise these data, especially for the innumerable pinned insects whose collecting information is held on small labels.MethodsWe piloted semi-automated specimen imaging and digitisation of specimen labels for a collection of ~29,000 pinned insects of ground beetles (Carabidae: Lebiinae) held at the Natural History Museum, London. Raw transcription data were curated against literature sources and non-digital collection records. The primary data were subjected to statistical analyses to infer trends in collection activities and descriptive taxonomy over the past two centuries.ResultsThis work produced research-ready digitised records for 2,546 species (40% of known species of Lebiinae). Label information was available on geography in 91% of identified specimens, and the time of collection in 39.8% of specimens and could be approximated for nearly all specimens. Label data revealed the great age of this collection (average age 91.4 years) and the peak period of specimen acquisition between 1880 and 1930, with little differences among continents. Specimen acquisition declined greatly after about 1950. Early detected species generally were present in numerous specimens but were missing records from recent decades, while more recently acquired species (after 1950) were represented mostly by singleton specimens only. The slowing collection growth was mirrored by the decreasing rate of species description, which was affected by huge time lags of several decades to formal description after the initial specimen acquisition.DiscussionHistoric label information provides a unique resource for assessing the state of biodiversity backwards to pre-industrial times. Many species held in historical collections especially from tropical super-diverse areas may not be discovered ever again, and if they do, their recognition requires access to digital resources and more complete levels of species description. A final challenge is to link the historical specimens to contemporary collections that are mostly conducted with mechanical trapping of specimens and DNA-based species recognition.

This paper discusses the role of traditional natural history museums in the coming century. In particular, it scrutinizes the challenges traditional natural history museums face from uncertainty created by climate changes. The paper examines how natural history museums must reposition themselves from their traditional function of collecting, preserving, and exhibiting natural history collections to being actively involved in the preservation of natural heritage. It discusses the elements that make up our natural heritage, how these may be threatened and what methods museums and other related organizations and agencies can take to ensure an effective allocation of resources for the conservation of biodiversity, ecological systems, species records and knowledge for future generations. It looks at in vivo conservation strategies for species preservation and the functional role traditional natural history museums have among these ideas and methods. In the face of climate change, traditional natural history museums have an essential role in educating the public on the necessity of maintaining biodiversity. Public awareness of the threats to biodiversity and the role biodiversity plays in maintaining balanced ecosystems is essential if we wish to pass on a planet rich in biological diversity for coming generations. There is a need for better preservation of collections and collection security through exchange of duplicate specimens, information transfer and sharing by exploiting the many advantages of the Internet, discussion forums on a wide range of regional and local problems as they relate to biodiversity, and effective manpower usage among relevant agencies to improve resource allocation and efficiency of budgets.

Recently, Meierotto et al. (2019) proposed a 'revolutionary' protocol for the description of understudied hyperdiverse taxa. The premise of their study was to champion exclusively DNA-barcode-based species descriptions (=diagnoses), which would dramatically increase the rate of description and provide a 'human-readable record in the literature' (unlike a Barcode Index Number, BIN; Ratnasingham & Hebert, 2013) that can later be supplemented with additional information. Species are always delimited against already known species (Linnaeus, 1753, 1758; Mayr, 1992; ICZN, 1999; Naciri & Linder, 2015; Renner, 2016). This was also recognized by Meierotto et al. (2019, p. 120): 'Requirements for the publication of new species include (…) that they be accompanied by either a description or diagnosis which can separate them from any known species with which they are likely to be confused'. However, the latter authors failed to diagnose their 15 new Zelomorpha Ashmead, 1900 species from 51 out of 52 previously known species (only the type species was used in the analysis) and their three new Hemichoma Enderlein, 1920 species from any of the five previously known species. This is not the first case of its kind in zoology; Hebert et al. (2004) proposed to recognize ten species of skipper butterflies (genus Astraptes) based on DNA characters and ecology and some morphological characters, but the species were not formally named until Brower (2010) described them based exclusively on unique mutations in the DNA barcode region. Brower (2010) hailed this method as a flagship example of DNA barcoding's success in overcoming the 'taxonomic impediment' (Brower, 2010). However, it has received extensive criticism (DeSalle et al., 2005; Pons et al., 2006; Rubinoff et al., 2006; Elias et al., 2007; Dupérré, 2020). Meierotto et al. (2019) have taken this approach one step further by immediately assigning names to the lineages. This is, in our opinion, a step too far. Each description includes a lateral habitus image of a single specimen, a short diagnosis based solely on COI barcode nucleotide differences, brief notes on biology, and largely unannotated type specimen information except for brief mention of the locality and host caterpillar of the holotype. There are no morphological descriptions, and as mentioned, the 'molecular diagnosis' of their new Zelomorpha spp. are compared only with that of the type species, and not to the other 51 already known species of that genus, and in the case of Hemichoma, with none of the five species that were already described. We consider this poor taxonomic practice, and their approach to be fundamentally flawed. We urge innovators to pursue revolutionary new approaches that do not undermine the value of taxonomic expertise or produce sloppy results, but rather seek to draw on the latest methodological advancements to increase the rate of taxonomy without compromising on quality. Over the last 20 years, there have been many calls for an increase in the rate of taxonomic description (Mora et al., 2011). Few have delivered on that promise. Undoubtedly, the single steepest increase in this rate was made possible by DNA barcoding (Hebert et al., 2003). Yet, in the wake of the genetic revolution, there were already concerns that too much emphasis might be placed on DNA barcoding data alone, leading taxonomists to neglect the importance of other data—integrative approaches, taking the congruence of genetic signals with other datasets, would be required to keep describing biologically meaningful units (Dayrat, 2005; Ebach & Holdrege, 2005; Will et al., 2005). DNA barcoding is a rapid means to sort specimens into clusters, identify species and discover new ones (when a library of the relevant named species is already available), but does not overcome the bottleneck of the description process itself. Proposals for methods to speed up that process were dubbed 'turbo' or 'fast-track' taxonomy—an approach that does not differ fundamentally from previous species descriptions, but relies more heavily on formulaic descriptions of large numbers of new species (Butcher et al., 2012; Riedel et al., 2013). In essence, the approach of Meierotto et al. (2019) is simply another one of these turbo-taxonomic approaches except in three key aspects: Fundamentally, a diagnosis should identify features or combinations of features of a new species that are unique, that is, that allow it to be distinguished from all previously named taxa. It thereby gives a means not only to identify the new species but also to demonstrate that the new taxon is not a synonym of an existing one. The diagnoses of Meierotto et al. (2019) are based solely on DNA barcodes, but no barcodes are presented for 51 of the 52 existing species of Zelomorpha. Indeed, the existing taxa are summarily ignored, except for a statement that the notes of the second author (M.J. Sharkey) were used to verify that the new species are distinct from the existing taxa, without providing any evidence. As a result, it is impossible, based on the study of Meierotto et al. (2019), to assess whether or not their 15 new Zelomorpha names are distinct from 51 of the 52 species that were already described. In our opinion, Meierotto et al. (2019) have impeded, not enhanced, the taxonomy of these wasps. Ignoring almost all previously described species in a genus is indeed a way to speed up taxonomy—the process of comparison becomes very easy when you neglect practically all existing names—but it also creates chaos. Even the fastest approach to taxonomy will always require consideration of existing names before new ones can be established. Morphologically homogeneous ('cryptic') species are difficult to diagnose from one another, even when substantial differences exist in their DNA barcodes. This can delay taxonomy, because more effort must be invested per species to identify characters that do indeed differ. To overcome this problem, Renner (2016) recently called for more widespread inclusion of DNA sequence data in diagnoses. However, we do not believe that Renner (2016) envisioned the complete replacement of the diagnosis by single nucleotide changes, but rather expansion of concise but comprehensive diagnoses with such information. In some cases, restriction exclusively to genetic markers may be appropriate (e.g. where morphology is highly plastic, or where extremely distinctive genetic lineages are demonstrably cryptic in all other available lines of evidence), but such cases are likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Having complementary lines of evidence, such as morphology, is particularly important when, as is the case in Meierotto et al. (2019), only a tiny portion of the available names have DNA sequence data available. The lack of overlap between morphological and genetic data will further delay the process of clarifying whether or not the new names are synonyms of existing species. It is also important to note that DNA barcoding relies wholly on mitochondrial markers (usually cytochrome oxidase-I). Mitochondrial trees often disagree with nuclear species trees, especially in taxa where Wolbachia may be altering mtDNA introgression (Klopfstein et al., 2016). In these cases, and especially when genetic data are the sole basis of species-level recognition, congruence between nuclear and mitochondrial signal should be tested to better reinforce the species units identified. Moreover, as explained by Dupérré (2020), purely DNA-based descriptions will not only make the identification of millions of historical specimens impossible, it will impair this science in developing countries which house most of the undiscovered portion of biodiversity, due to high costs and lack of staff and technology. Considering the status of taxonomy as a fundamental science, this would drastically affect other related fields of study and, importantly, conservation. Renner (2016) also called for more emphasis on diagnosis and not description. With highly descriptive taxonomy, a great deal of time is invested in description of features that are not informative for the distinction of species from one another, which is time that could be spent instead diagnosing substantially more species. Instead, she and others have emphasized the importance of high-resolution photographs as supplements to diagnoses. We agree that detailed high-resolution photographs of specimens can indeed be highly valuable, but we contend that (i) there must be several photographs available, not a single lateral photograph of a single specimen, as provided by Meierotto et al. (2019), and (ii) some text highlighting important diagnostic features is valuable to experts, and of paramount importance to nonexperts, who must instead play a game of 'spot-the-difference' when such information is lacking. Experts might know the difference between variable and nonvariable characters, whereas such features cannot be distinguished by nonexperts, and it is the purpose of the diagnosis, if not the description, to point such features out. Moreover, we note that the photographs of Meierotto et al. (2019) are sometimes blurry and almost all of them cut off the tips of the antennae! Finally, it has been shown that (e.g. in case of tropical parasitoid wasps) the most time-consuming part of species discovery is field sampling (Sääksjärvi et al., 2004; Hopkins et al., 2019), and the actual description of the species may be written within minutes when material and expertise are already available. To make up the gaps in the existing barcode database, which contains maybe 2% of currently named species worldwide (see http://www.boldsystems.org/), far more survey work needs to be undertaken. A comprehensive barcoding database for a given taxon is a prerequisite to contemplating a DNA-only approach akin to that of Meierotto et al. (2019), and one that will require substantial further work to assemble. In the face of the Holocene (=sixth) extinction, taxonomists are racing to describe the 8 million unnamed eukaryotes that lie between the 2.07 million species currently named (Frid & Caswell, 2016), and the estimated ten million extant species (Mora et al., 2011; but see also Larsen et al., 2017 for well-reasoned estimates orders of magnitude higher). Currently, the rate of description is around 18 000 species per year (IISE, 2011), but with species going extinct at a rate 1000 times higher than the natural background rate of extinction, the annual species loss is clearly within or even higher than the rate of new descriptions (Dirzo & Raven, 2003; Mora et al., 2011), and thousands of species will undoubtedly go extinct before they can be described to science (IPBES, 2019). As the current average shelf life of new species between discovery and description is about 21 years (Fontaine et al., 2012), we do indeed need revolutionary new approaches to the discovery and description of new species. BINs and candidate species numbers (Vieites et al., 2009) already serve a valuable purpose as alphanumeric placeholders to recognize potentially evolutionarily significant diversity before it is taxonomically described. Simply assigning all BINs taxonomic names as Meierotto et al. (2019) propose would indeed complete the inventory of life on Earth extremely quickly (at precisely the same pace as the rate of barcoding)—that we do not dispute. But it would also remove the quantitative and qualitative difference between these preliminary identifiers (based on a single DNA marker) and full taxonomic recognition (based on a more comprehensive diagnosis, ideally supported by multiple lines of evidence including genetic data) that lend taxonomy its value. It would supplant taxonomists with technicians, who need to know nothing of the biology of the units with which they are dealing. The purpose of inclusion of molecular data in species descriptions should be to produce more precise taxonomic framework. A species description can be thought of as a hypothesis that can be supported or rejected when more data are obtained. Other researchers must have an opportunity to scientifically evaluate the status of the species in question. In our eyes, methodological changes to the way species are delineated and described are an important component of increasing the rate of species description, but dismissing the existing literature, and producing 'descriptions' that contain almost no information on the morphology of species, its variation, their unique features, their biology, or other aspects, do not constitute a revolution, and cannot be adopted. We note that real revolutions are undoubtedly coming, especially from the fields of machine learning and integrative species delimitation (Solís-Lemus et al., 2015; Favret & Sieracki, 2016), and also that it is possible to produce massive, rapidly assembled taxonomic monographs without compromising on quality (Rakotoarison et al., 2017). But we also want to emphasize that there is no shortcut to nirvana, and a true paradigm shift in taxonomy will come only when there is a revolution in the level of financial investment in taxonomy and the natural history museums that house the described and undescribed reference material of life on Earth (Wheeler, 2020), and when legislature stops acting to prohibit the collecting work of dedicated taxonomists while turning a blind eye to the innumerable organisms destroyed with every hectare of habitat that is lost (Britz et al., 2020). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

This study was carried out to gauge the current status of natural history collection centres in Malaysia, primarily focused on animal collections. Part of the research is reported here and it constituted objective one which is to compare the status of natural history collection between the various centres in Malaysia and also with three selected Southeast Asian tropical region museums in trying to understand need of the Malaysian public for a natural history museum. It maps out the locations, describes the number and kinds of specimens kept at each collection centre. Financial and governance aspects are also described. In total 11 centres were visited all over Malaysia. These collection centres and museums were managed by federal or state government or universities. Duration of visit at each location ranged from one to seven days. During the visit interviews were carried out with collection manager to obtained Questionnaire was also left behind for managers of centre to fill in and sent back to researchers. In addition, three natural history collection centres and museums in South East Asia tropical region were also visited: Bogor Zoological Museum, Indonesia; Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Singapore and Mahachakri Sirindhorn Natural History Museum, Prince of Songkhla University, Thailand. Following the same protocol as with Malaysian centres, the information obtained enable researcher to make comparison between Malaysia and those in the region. This paper found that most of the natural history museums and collection centres were focused in the centre of peninsular Malaysia. However, natural history collections in Malaysia are still limited by state and national borders. Coordination and integration of these centres, currently runned separately by the federal, state governments, research institutions and institution of higher learning, is seen as the way forward to provide for a strong basis of understanding biodiversity among the Malaysian public.

Natural history museums are unique spaces for interdisciplinary research and educational innovation. Through extensive exhibits and public programming and by hosting rich communities of amateurs, students, and researchers at all stages of their careers, they can provide a place-based window to focus on integration of science and discovery, as well as a locus for community engagement. At the same time, like a synthesis radio telescope, when joined together through emerging digital resources, the global community of museums (the ‘Global Museum’) is more than the sum of its parts, allowing insights and answers to diverse biological, environmental, and societal questions at the global scale, across eons of time, and spanning vast diversity across the Tree of Life. We argue that, whereas natural history collections and museums began with a focus on describing the diversity and peculiarities of species on Earth, they are now increasingly leveraged in new ways that significantly expand their impact and relevance. These new directions include the possibility to ask new, often interdisciplinary questions in basic and applied science, such as in biomimetic design, and by contributing to solutions to climate change, global health and food security challenges. As institutions, they have long been incubators for cutting-edge research in biology while simultaneously providing core infrastructure for research on present and future societal needs. Here we explore how the intersection between pressing issues in environmental and human health and rapid technological innovation have reinforced the relevance of museum collections. We do this by providing examples as food for thought for both the broader academic community and museum scientists on the evolving role of museums. We also identify challenges to the realization of the full potential of natural history collections and the Global Museum to science and society and discuss the critical need to grow these collections. We then focus on mapping and modelling of museum data (including place-based approaches and discovery), and explore the main projects, platforms and databases enabling this growth. Finally, we aim to improve relevant protocols for the long-term storage of specimens and tissues, ensuring proper connection with tomorrow’s technologies and hence further increasing the relevance of natural history museums.

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find a modus vivendi that promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress.

International cooperation, including through international legal instruments, appears important for the conservation of large carnivores worldwide. This is due to, inter alia, the worrying conservation status and population trends of many large carnivore species; the importance of large carnivores for biodiversity conservation at large; their occurrence at low densities, with many populations extending across various countries; and the international nature of particular threats. For the 31 heaviest species in the order Carnivora, this study (i) documents to what extent existing international legal instruments contribute to large carnivore conservation, and (ii) identifies ways of optimizing their contribution in this regard. From this dual perspective, it reviews all global wildlife conservation treaties—Ramsar Wetlands Convention, World Heritage Convention, Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—and selected regional instruments, using standard international law research methodology. Results indicate that a substantial body of relevant international law already exists, whereas simultaneously there is clear potential for enhancing the contribution of international law to large carnivore conservation. Avenues for pursuing this include promotion of instruments’ effective implementation; clarification of their precise implications for large carnivore conservation; development of formal guidance; expansion of instruments’ scope in terms of species, sites and countries; and creation of new instruments. The CMS and CBD hold particular potential in some of these respects. The experiences being gained under European legal instruments constitute an interesting ‘laboratory’ regarding human coexistence with expanding large carnivore populations and transboundary cooperation at the (sub)population level.

Traditionally taxonomy is divided into three interrelated disciplines: descriptive taxonomy, relationships between taxa and identification. Descriptive taxonomy is the original recognition and description of new taxa which were not previously known to exist. The relationships between taxa are often studied by phylogenetic reconstruction. Identification is the process by which individual specimens are assigned to previously known taxa, and does not necessarily involve the same characters used for the original recognition of those taxa. A great many of the taxonomic problems faced by field biologists are problems of identification. For example, a species may have been first described on the basis of adult characters, but the applied biologist may also need to identify the juvenile stages. It is this sort of problem that we shall consider in the control of onchocerciasis.