Abstract
Planetary extinction of biodiversity underscores the need for taxonomy. Here, we scrutinize spider taxonomy over the last decade (2008–2018), compiling 2083 published accounts of newly described species. We evaluated what type of data were used to delineate species, whether data were made freely available, whether an explicit species hypothesis was stated, what types of media were used, the sample sizes, and the degree to which species constructs were integrative. The findings we report reveal that taxonomy remains largely descriptive, not integrative, and provides no explicit conceptual framework. Less than 4% of accounts explicitly stated a species concept and over one-third of all new species described were based on 1–2 specimens or only one sex. Only ~5% of studies made data freely available, and only ~14% of all newly described species employed more than one line of evidence, with molecular data used in ~6% of the studies. These same trends have been discovered in other animal groups, and therefore we find it logical that taxonomists face an uphill challenge when justifying the scientific rigor of their field and securing the needed resources. To move taxonomy forward, we make recommendations that, if implemented, will enhance its rigor, repeatability, and scientific standards.
Highlights
The biological field of taxonomy and systematics, the science of describing and classifying species, is often maligned as merely descriptive [1,2,3,4,5]
We aimed to evaluate the data being collected and the species hypotheses being proposed across the large taxonomic field of spider systematics (Order: Araneae)
As a model system that likely reflects the state of the science, we aim to take a critical look at the field of spider taxonomy by asking some difficult questions about the nature of the work we are doing with the hope of provoking change
Summary
The biological field of taxonomy and systematics, the science of describing and classifying species, is often maligned as merely descriptive [1,2,3,4,5]. Despite this characterization, taxonomic products play a pivotal role by providing the underlying framework for every biological study [6]—rigorous and repeatable ecological, biochemical, comparative, evolutionary, and physiological studies would be impossible without accurate species delimitation. Recent reliance on citation metrics and journal impact factors for making hiring decisions, promotions, and other rewards [14] reinforces that taxonomic work is undervalued [9]. The latest example of this dangerous trend was the proposed suppression (and subsequent reversal, due to backlash) in early 2020 of impact factors from journals with high instances of self-citations—oftentimes taxonomic journals, a direct consequence of the tradition not to cite taxonomic authorities—as expressed in an announcement from Clarivate (https://jcr.help.clarivate.com/Content/title-suppressions.htm (accessed on 28 June 2020))
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
