Taxon Concepts Research Articles

Expressing Circumscription in the Taxon Concept Schema (TCS)

Expressing Circumscription in the Taxon Concept Schema (TCS)

Measuring and explaining disagreement in bird taxonomy

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.

APCalign: an R package workflow and app for aligning and updating flora names to the Australian Plant Census

Here we present ‘APCalign’, an R package and accompanying browser-sourced application to align and update scientific names for Australian vascular plants to the most likely currently accepted name in the Australian Plant Census (APC) or a name in the Australian Plant Names Index (APNI). Scientific names are the label assigned to unique taxon concepts by the scientific community, but this common terminology is most useful if a taxon concept is consistently referred to by the same name. These links can be broken because of either spelling mistakes or taxonomic changes. Automated tools are required to resolve taxon lists, aligning and updating long lists of possibly erroneous scientific names to the most likely currently accepted names. It is essential that tools specific to the APC/APNI be developed, because these lists specify an endorsed national-level nomenclature used in government legislation and include the uniquely Australian concept of phrase names, absent in global taxonomic datasets. To align input names to names within the APC or APNI, ‘APCalign’ works progressively through a sequence of checks that combine different permutations of the input name, exact versus fuzzy matches, matches that consider the entire name input versus a subset of words, and character strings that indicate a name can be resolved only to a genus or family. The aligned names are then, when possible, updated to a currently accepted taxon concept within the APC. This package should facilitate all research outputs that require diverse scientific name lists to be merged or outdated lists to be updated.

A near-complete dataset of plant growth form, life history, and woodiness for all Australian plants

Tabular records of plant-trait data are essential for diverse research purposes. Here we present scorings for a trio of core plant traits, plant growth form, woodiness and life history, for nearly all (>99%) accepted taxon concepts included in the Australian Plant Census (APC). This dataset is predominantly derived from Australia’s state and national floras, supplemented by the taxonomic literature and diverse web resources. In total, 29,993 species and infraspecific taxa were scored for plant growth form, 30,279 for woodiness and 30,056 for life history, with taxa scored as displaying a single or multiple trait values, as appropriate. We provide sample R code that shows how to access and interrogate the dataset. This resource will enable rapid assessment of plant responses to disturbance events and new biogeographic analyses of trait distributions, better understandings of evolutionary trajectories, and ecological strategies.

A taxonomic backbone for the Plumbaginaceae (Caryophyllales).

A taxonomic backbone of the Plumbaginaceae is presented and the current state of knowledge on phylogenetic relationships and taxon limits is reviewed as a basis for the accepted taxon concepts. In total, 4,476 scientific names and designations are treated of which 30 are not in the family Plumbaginaceae. The Plumbaginaceae are subdivided in three tribes with 26 genera and 1,179 accepted species. Two subgenera, 17 sections, two subsections and 187 infraspecific taxa are accepted. At the species and infraspecific level 2,782 synonyms were assigned to accepted taxa, whereas 194 names were excluded from the core checklist (i.e., unplaced taxa, infrageneric subdivisions with still uncertain application, names of verified uncertain application, invalid horticultural names, excluded names from other families, other excluded designations, and unresolved names). The EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy was utilized as the tool to compile and manage the names and further taxonomic data under explicit taxon concepts. Secundum references are given in case taxon concepts were taken from the literature, whereas this study serves as reference for newly circumscribed taxa. The family's division into the tribes Aegialitideae, Limonieae, and Plumbagineae departs from earlier two-subfamily classifications, prompted by recent phylogenetic findings that challenge the subfamilial affinity of Aegialitis. The genus Acantholimon was extended to include Gladiolimon, as currently available phylogenetic and morphological data support this merger. In Limonium, all accepted species could be assigned to sections and subsections or the "Mediterranean lineage", respectively, making use of the phylogenetic distribution of their morphological characters and states. A new combination and/or status is proposed for Dyerophytumsocotranum, Limoniumthymoides, Limonium×fraternum, Limonium×rossmaessleri, and Limoniumsect.Jovibarba. Special attention is given to nomenclatural issues, particularly for Staticenomenambiguum to resolve the names under accepted names. The use of artificial groupings like "aggregates", "complexes" and "species groups" in alpha-taxonomic treatments is discussed. The taxonomic backbone will receive continued updates and through the Caryophyllales Taxonomic Expert Network, it contributes the treatment of the Plumbaginaceae for the World Flora Online.

A New Endemic Smilax (Smilacaceae) from Tafelberg, Suriname, Supported by Morphometric and Phylogenetic Evidence

Abstract— Taxonomy of Smilax in the Neotropics is poorly known with many undescribed species, unresolved synonymy, and regional treatments with conflicting taxon concepts. This issue is amplified in the Guiana Shield, which has arguably received the least amount of taxonomic research in Smilax. Here, we investigate multiple specimens from Tafelberg, Suriname that we hypothesized to represent an undescribed species. We used univariate and multivariate morphometrics to analyze linear measurements and leaf outlines to test if and how Tafelberg specimens differ from those of morphologically similar species in the Guiana Shield, Smilax lasseriana and S. maypurensis. We used a genome skimming approach to sequence and assemble plastomes, which also allowed us to extract plastid loci previously employed in Sanger-based studies and place the putative new species in a phylogeny with expanded taxon sampling. We recovered the Smilax from Tafelberg as more closely related to species with ranges centered in eastern Brazil than to its morphologically hypothesized congeners, S. lasseriana and S. maypurensis. We describe this new species as Smilax tafelbergensis with detailed morphological comparisons to similar taxa, a distribution map, and illustration.

Community Curation of Nomenclatural and Taxonomic Information in the Context of the Collection Management System JACQ

Nomenclatural and taxonomic information are crucial for curating botanical collections. In the course of changing methods for systematic and taxonomic studies, classification systems changed considerably over time (Dalla Torre and Harms 1900, Durand and Bentham 1888, Endlicher 1836, Angiosperm Phylogeny Group et al. 2016). Various approaches to store preserved material have been implemented, most of them based on scientific names (e.g., families, genera, species) often in combination with other criteria such as geographic provenance or collectors. The collection management system, JACQ, was established in the early 2000s then developed to support multiple institutions. It features a centralised data storage (with mirror sites) and access via the Internet. Participating collections can download their data at any time in a comma-separated values (CSV) format. From the beginning, JACQ was conceived as a collaboration platform for objects housed in botanical collections, i.e., plant, fungal and algal groups. For these groups, various sources of taxonomic reference exist, nowadays online resources are preferred, e.g., Catalogue of Life, AlgaeBase, Index Fungorum, Mycobank, Tropicos, Plants of the World Online, International Plant Names Index (IPNI), World Flora Online, Euro+Med, Anthos, Flora of Northamerica, REFLORA, Flora of China, Flora of Cuba, Australian Virtual Herbarium (AVH). Implementation and (re)use of PIDs Persistent identifiers (PIDs) for names (at any taxonomic rank) apart from PIDs for taxa, are essential to allow and support reliable referencing across institutions and thematic research networks (Agosti et al. 2022). For this purpose we have integrated referencing to several of the above mentioned resources and populate the names used inside JACQ with those external PIDs. For example, Salix rosmarinifolia is accepted in Plants of the World Online while Euro+Med Plantbase considers it a synonym of Salix repens subsp. rosmarinifolia. Either one can be an identification of a specimen in the JACQ database. Retrieval of collection material One strong use case is the curation of material in historic collections. On the basis of outdated taxon concepts that were applied to the material in history, "old" synonyms are omnipresent in historical collections. In order to retrieve all material of a given taxon, it is necessary to know all relevant names. Future outlook In combination with the capability of Linked Data and the IIIF (International Image Interoperability Framework) technology, these PIDs serve as crucial elements for the integration of decentralized information systems and reuse of (global) taxonomic backbones in combination with collection management systems (Gamer and Kreyenbühl 2022, Hyam 2022, Loh 2017).

Improved Sharing and Linkage of Taxonomic Data with the Taxon Concept Standard (TCS)

The term ‘taxonomic backbone’ is often used to indicate the compromise taxonomies that form the taxonomic backbone of systems like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). However, the term can also be seen in the broader sense as the entire expansive and continually evolving body of taxonomic work that underpins all biodiversity data and the linkage of all the different concepts that are used in various parts of the world and by various groups of people. The Taxon Concept Schema (TCS; Hyam and Kennedy 2006), which was ratified as a TDWG standard in 2005, came forth from the need of providers of taxonomic information for a mechanism to exchange data with other providers and users. Additionally, there was the knowledge that taxon names make poor identifiers for taxa and that more than names are needed for effective sharing and linking of biodiversity data. The same name can be associated with multiple taxon concepts or definitions, especially when a name has been around for a long time or is used in a heavily revised group. In order for others to know what a name means, people who use a name should also indicate which concept of that name is being used. Traditionally, the Latin ‘sensu’ or `sec.` have been used for this purpose; in TCS, an ‘according to’ property is used. The taxon concept, along with a language to relate different concepts, which is also in TCS, was later introduced to a systematic audience in an article by Franz and Peet (2009). Unfortunately, TCS has never enjoyed wide adoption and since Darwin Core (Wieczorek et al. 2012) was ratified in 2009, sharing of taxonomic information has mostly been done with the Darwin Core Taxon class. However, various issues with the Darwin Core Taxon class (e.g., Darwin Core and RDF/OWL Task Groups 2015) have made us look at TCS again and in 2020 the Taxonomic Names and Concepts Interest Group was formally renamed the TCS Maintenance Group. In 2021, a TCS 2 Task Group was established with the goal to update TCS to a Vocabulary Standard (like Darwin Core) that can be maintained under the TDWG Vocabulary Maintenance Specification (Vocabulary Maintenance Specification Task Group 2017). As it currently stands, TCS 2 (TCS 2 Task Group 2023) has two classes for dealing with taxonomy, the Taxon Concept and Taxon Relationship classes, and two classes for dealing with nomenclature, the Taxon Name and Nomenclatural Type classes. TCS 2 describes objects that are present and known in the domain and uses terms that are used in the domain (e.g., Greuter et al. 2011, Hawksworth 2010), so is easily understood by practitioners in the domain and other users of taxonomic information, as well as data specialists and developers. At the same time, it is in accordance with the OpenBiodiv Ontology (Senderov et al. 2018) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS; Miles and Bechhofer 2009). TCS 2 can be used to mark up taxon concepts of any type, including taxonomic treatments, checklists, field guides, as well as systems like the Catalogue of Life and AviBase. Once marked up as TCS, concepts of all types look the same and therefore a small standard of under 40 terms can be used to share and link all taxonomic information and to link to other types of biodiversity data, for example occurrence data or descriptive data.

TaxonWorks in its 10th Year: What’s new, what’s next?

TaxonWorks in its 10th Year: What’s new, what’s next?

Building the Australian National Species List

The Australian National Species List (AuNSL) is a unified, nationally accepted, taxonomy for the native and naturalised biota of Australia. It is derived from a set of taxon-focussed resources including the Australian Plant Name Index and Australian Plant Census, the Australian Faunal Directory, and similar lists of fungi, lichens and bryophytes. These resources share a common infrastructure, contribute to the single national taxonomy (AuNSL), but retain their independent curation practices and online presentation. The AuNSL is now the core national infrastructure providing names and taxonomy for significant biodiversity data infrastructures including the Atlas of Living Australia, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network, the Biodiversity Data Repository, and the Species Profile and Threats Database. As the go-to resource for names and taxonomy for Australia’s unique biodiversity, the AuNSL must be constantly updated to reflect taxonomic and nomenclatural change. For some taxonomic groups, the AuNSL is substantially complete, and the incorporation of new taxa and other novelties occurs with little time lag. For other taxonomic groups the data are patchy and updates sporadic. Like similar projects, the AuNSL would benefit from improvements to taxonomic data publishing and sharing. Such improvements have the potential to enable automated, real-time ingestion for new taxonomic and nomenclatural data, allowing curator time to be re-directed to backfilling the historical data from a dispersed and complex literature. Ideally, the AuNSL will be able to benefit from advances in automated approaches to processing the historical data, including via the sharing of standardised representations of such data. Here we outline the AuNSL data model, editor functionality, and describe our approach to sharing our data via existing and emerging standards such as Darwin Core and Taxon Concept Schema (TCS2). We then describe what we, as consumers of taxonomic data from published works, really need from publishers of new, and reprocessed historical data. In brief, we need structured taxonomic data conforming to an adequate standard.

Australian National Species List: name identifier management and linkages

The Australian National Species List (AuNSL) is the provider of names and taxonomy for significant national biodiversity data infrastructures including the Atlas of Living Australia, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network, the Biodiversity Data Repository, and the Species Profile and Threats Database. The AuNSL mints persistent identifiers for names covered by the codes of nomenclature and name-like objects such as phrase names. To ensure sustainability of identifiers, a mapping service is provided to always resolve all AuNSL identifiers including historical and deprecated forms. Names are used as the building blocks for recording taxon name usages and taxon concepts. We provide services for matching, disambiguation and taxonomic resolution of names. The AuNSL does not exist in a vacuum and supports identifier mappings to external resources and related systems such as the International Plant Name Index (IPNI), Zoobank, the Biodiversity Heritage Library. To enable this integration, persistent identifiers from original and/or significant sources are required and this data is currently limited and incomplete within the AuNSL. To address this issue, we need to look backwards for improved ways of matching to existing persistent identifiers and forward to improving capture of taxonomic novelties and name-like objects and their identifiers.

Taxonomic Data Quality Control for CoL-China

Taxonomic Data Quality Control for CoL-China

The Catalogue of Life Data Package (CoLDP) and the Taxon Concept Standard (TCS): A Comparison

The Catalogue of Life Data Package (CoLDP; Catalogue of Life 2022) is the preferred mechanism for getting data in and out of the ChecklistBank. A CoLDP is a ZIP file containing files with delimiter-separated values, similar to the Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A; Global Biodiversity Information Facility 2023), but does not enforce the DwC-A star schema requiring a single Core file and zero or more Extension files. This makes it preferable for exchanging taxonomic data in tabular format as taxonomic data contains at least three different types of objects—taxa, names and references—that are all interlinked. TCS (currently still Taxon Concept Schema) is the TDWG (Biodiversity Information Standards) standard for dealing with taxonomic data specifically. An effort is currently underway (TCS 2 Task Group 2023) to free TCS from its XML schema and turn it into a TDWG vocabulary standard that is maintainable under the TDWG Vocabulary Maintenance Specification (VMS; Vocabulary Maintenance Specification Task Group 2017). For a domain standard like TCS, it is essential that it supports an important warehouse of taxonomic information like ChecklistBank and an exchange format like CoLDP. Therefore, as part of the Implementation Experience Report that has to accompany a major update to an existing TDWG standard, a comparison has been undertaken between TCS and the data model behind CoLDP. While some of the terms CoLDP uses are different from the ones used by TCS, the two specifications are completely compatible. This presentation will highlight some of the key similarities and differences. It is heartening to see that different groups of people independently chose to make the same departure from the existing specification. As TCS will be maintainable—and, in fact, still has to undergo public review—and CoLDP presumably can evolve as well, there are opportunities for TCS and CoLDP to come even closer together than they already are.

Nanopublications for Biodiversity Go Live

A nanopublication is the smallest unit of publishable information: a scientifically meaningful assertion about anything that can be uniquely identified and attributed to its author(s) and serve to communicate a single statement, its original source (provenance) and citation record (publication info) (Mons and Velterop 2009, Kuhn et al. 2021). Nanopublications are fully expressed in both human-readable and machine-interpretable formats and can be cited thorugh their unique URI identifiers (IDs). The development of the concept, formats and use cases of biodiversity-specific nanopublications started back in 2016 (Penev et al. 2016). Recently, Pensoft and Knowledge Pixels created a workflow to publish nanopublications related to a published article (Fig. 1). At its core, the generic biodiversity nanopublication consists of a triple structure with a Subject element, a Relation element, and an Object element. The Subject element refers to a specific organism identified by an Organism ID, or groups of organisms (Taxa, identified by Taxon Concept IDs). Universal Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) are minted for both in all cases, although if the given organism already has an identifier, e.g., from digitised collections or observations, then this identifier can be specified too. The Organism is linked via class membership (rdf:type) to a Taxon Concept, which is identified with another UUID that is minted upon nanopublication creation. The need to mint IDs is due to the fact that Organism or Taxon Concept IDs (which refer to taxon names but also details about their interpretation and use) are not currently available in any comprehensive vocabulary or database. The minted Taxon Concept IDs are further defined by linking them to a Taxon Name ID from Catalogue of Life / ChecklistBank (via a relation called "has Taxon Name") and by linking to Taxon Name's concept (interpretation of the name) by a publication's Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or TreatmentBank entry (via a relation called "used as defined in"). Apart from assigning a Taxon Concept, the subject organism can optionally be linked to a life cycle stage (based on the Uber-anatomy (UBERON) Ontology) and to occurrence data via Occurrence ID. The Relation element expresses the association between Subject and Object, according to a particular ontology (e.g., Relation Ontology). The Object element may have different formats. In the template “Association between organisms" the Object has the same structure as the Subject; while in the template “Association between an organism and environment”, the Object is a type of habitat available from the Environment Ontolog (ENVO). In addition to an assertion, a nanopublication has a provenance record (e.g., DOI of the article where the assertion has been published) and the type of evidence entered in the BasisOfRecord field. The publication info always contains the ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) of the nanopublication's creator, and the timestamp of creation. Another type of nanopublication template annotates an entire article or selected text from it by using the ORCID of the creator as the Subject, the article's DOI as the Object, and the Citation Typing Ontology (CiTO) to express evaluation of the article (e.g., “supports”, “agrees with”, “discusses”). These templates are complemented by free text comments and are available under the Nanopub tab on the article webpages at several Pensoft journals (see example and blog). Nanopublications can also prompt other types of publications, e.g., hypotheses, to become more machine-interpretable, as discussed for invasion biology (Heger et al. 2023).

Nested singletons in molecular trees: Utility of adding morphological and geographical data from digitized herbarium specimens to test taxon concepts at species level in the case of Casearia (Salicaceae).

Using the genus Casearia, we assessed the status of nested singletons: individual specimens corresponding to accepted species but in molecular trees appearing nested within clades of closely related species. Normally, such cases would be left undecided, while on the other hand, timely taxonomic decisions are required. We argue that morphological, chorological, and ecological data can be informative to illuminate patterns of speciation. Their use can provide a first step in testing taxon concepts at species level. We focused on five cases of nested singletons in trees of the genus Casearia. We employed PCA and cluster analysis to assess phenotypic differentiation. Using geocoordinates, we calculated niche space differentiation based on 19 bioclim variables, by means of PCA and niche equivalency and similarity tests and generated dot maps. We found that the singletons were morphologically distinctive in two of the five cases (Casearia selloana and C.manausensis), relatively distinctive in two other cases (C.zizyphoides and C.mariquitensis), and partially overlapping in the last case (C.grandiflora). For two cases (C.mariquitensis and C.selloana), ecological niche space was broadly overlapping, in two cases it was found broadly nested (C.grandiflora and C.zizyphoides), and in one case narrowly nested (C.manausensis), but in no case niche differentiation was observed. Niche overlap, similarity and equivalency showed corresponding patterns. Given these data, one would interpret C.selloana and C.manausensis as presumably well-distinguished taxa, their narrow distribution ranges suggesting recently emerging lineages. The other three cases are not clearcut. Morphological data would suggest particularly C.grandiflora conspecific with C.arborea, but differences in the distribution are intriguing. Our approach would reject the notion of potential synonymy based on nested phylogenetic placement for at least two of the five cases. The other case also shows no complete lack of differentiation which would support synonymy.

Software infrastructure and data pipelines established for technical interoperability within a cross-border cooperation for the flora of the Bohemian Forest.

The timely and geographical resolutions, as well as the quantity and taxon concepts of records on the occurrence of plants near national borders is often ambiguous. This is due to the regional focus and different approaches of the contributing national and regional databases and networks of the neighbouring countries. Careful data transformation between national data providers is essential for understanding distribution patterns and its dynamics for organisms in areas along the national borders. Sharing occurrence data through the international data aggregator Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) is also complicated and has to consider that the underlying taxonomic concept and geographic information system of each single GBIF dataset might be different. In addition, some regional data providers have a restrictive (non-cc) licensing policy which does not allow data publication via the GBIF network. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate new ways to make data fit for use for a better and comprehensive understanding of the Flora of the Bohemian Forest. In this paper, we present a bilateral technical interoperability solution for vascular plant occurrence data for the area between the Czech Republic and Bavaria. We describe the initial state of data providers in both countries and the factual and technical challenges in finding a sustainable concept to establish mutual data sharing. The resulting solution for a functional infrastructure and an agreed data pipeline is described in a step-by-step approach. The new distributed infrastructure allows botanists and other stakeholders from both countries to work within the cross-border context of historical and current plants' distribution.

Systematics of the Ocoee Salamander (Plethodontidae: Desmognathus ocoee), with description of two new species from the southern Blue Ridge Mountains.

The "mountain" dusky is a charismatic ecomorph of Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus): smaller (~20-50mm SVL), more terrestrial and montane woodland species, typically with round tails and extremely variable, often colorful patterns. Originally considered a single species (D. ochrophaeus), populations across the Appalachians are now divided into D. abditus, D. carolinensis, D. ochrophaeus, D. ocoee, and D. orestes, which do not form a clade but are instead scattered across the phylogeny of Desmognathus. A Coastal Plain species with a mountain dusky phenotype (D. apalachicolae) is also nested within a lineage related to D. ocoee. Within the current concept of D. ocoee, there are up to 8 genetically distinct geographic lineages which display significantly different but substantially overlapping morphologies. Recent studies have suggested that as many as six species could reasonably be delimited based on genetic data. We evaluate the strength of that evidence here and find support for five species in the D. apalachicolae + D. ocoee group. The first is D. apalachicolae in essentially its originally described form from the Coastal Plain. The second and third are D. adatsihi sp. nov. and D. balsameus sp. nov., endemic to the Great Smoky/Plott Balsam and Great Balsam Mountains, respectively. The fourth corresponds to the resurrected D. perlapsus for populations from the Alarka and Cowee Mountains in North Carolina, through the Chattahoochee River drainage to the Fall Line in the Piedmont of Georgia and Alabama. The fifth is D. ocoee, here restricted to populations in the Nantahala and Unicoi Mountains and southernmost Blue Ridge escarpment, along with previously recognized populations from the Cumberland Escarpment and Cumberland Plateau of south-central Tennessee and northeastern Alabama. This taxon concept of D. ocoee includes three deeply divergent geographic genetic segments that hybridize across two contact zones, while D. apalachicolae may be nested within some southern Blue Ridge populations of D. ocoee. The resurrected form of D. perlapsus also exhibits some admixture with the newly restricted D. ocoee. While this taxonomic arrangement is robust and stably derived from mitochondrial, morphological, and nuclear data, more sophisticated future analyses sampling additional populations and loci to estimate relationships may reach more subtle conclusions regarding the identity of some lineages within D. ocoee.

Allocation of Salamandra auriculata Holbrook, 1838, with a new species of swamp-dwelling dusky salamander (Plethodontidae: Desmognathus) from the Atlantic Coastal Plain

Most swamp-dwelling dusky salamanders of the genus Desmognathus from the Coastal Plain were long treated as a single species (Desmognathus auriculatus) ranging from east Texas to southeastern Virginia. This taxon concept was based on the name Salamandra auriculata Holbrook, 1838 with type locality Riceboro, Liberty County, Georgia and a type series that could not be located by later authors. Recent workers have been unable to locate or verify swamp-dwelling populations from east Texas and western Louisiana, which appear to be extirpated and may not have represented a distinct taxon from co-occurring lineages of D. conanti. Recent molecular phylogenies have supported at least four distinct species-level taxa within D. auriculatus. Populations from the Gulf Coastal Plain in eastern Louisiana, Mississippi, and southwestern Alabama were recently described as D. valentinei Means, Lamb, and Bernardo, 2017 and D. pascagoula Pyron, O'Connell, Lamb, and Beamer, 2022. This leaves two remaining species-level lineages with uncertain taxonomy and nomenclature: D. auriculatus A (Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), and D. auriculatus B/C (Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina), both of which occur near the type locality. We recently located a specimen at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle in Paris (MNHN 0.4675) that we concluded is one of Holbrook's syntypes and designated it as the lectotype, but without allocation. Here, we use linear morphometrics to confidently allocate it to D. auriculatus A, bolstered by examination of three historical topotypic collections. This requires a new name for D. auriculatus B/C, which we describe as D. valtos sp. nov. (suggested common name: Carolina Swamp Dusky Salamander) from Otter Creek, Craven County, North Carolina. Other related and sympatric species of Desmognathus remain to be described from the Atlantic Coastal Plain and adjacent Piedmont of the southeastern United States.

The Large Taxon Collider: Building the Atlas of Living Australia's taxonomic backbone

One of the most important components of the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) is our taxonomic backbone, comprised of an index of species names with a suite of web services for matching names and delivering information for our species pages. The index is built by merging lists from multiple Australian authoritative taxonomic sources into a single taxonomic tree. Where the primary data sources are incomplete, we attempt to pad out missing genera and species with alternative sources, for example, using Catalog of Life for some fungi branches, and classification of kingdoms: Viruses, Chromista, Protozoa and Bacteria. When the ALA ingests occurrence records or species checklists, we attempt to match the supplied names against the index using our name matching service. All going well, the service returns the authoritative persistent identifiers for the matched taxon concept and all of the parent taxon concepts. The name matching service will attempt fuzzy and higher rank matches in an attempt to ensure that every record in the ALA finds a home in the taxonomic tree. The merging and matching algorithms are available as open-source code. This presentation will give a brief overview of the construction of our names index, the technical and taxonomic challenges the ALA has faced in building and delivering the service, and our development plans for the future.

Catalogue of Life: From a list to a service

Over the past two decades, Catalogue of Life (COL) has aimed to deliver a species index of all life on earth, based on a consensus classification (Bánki et al. 2022). This index has now reached more than 2 million accepted species names, underpinned by a network of more than 500 experts (Costello et al. 2022). Over this period, the Catalogue of Life has strived to become a genuine international taxonomic resource, based on a collaboration that brings together the knowledge, data and contributions of taxonomic specialists and informaticians around the world. At the same time, the evolving user needs (as expressed by researchers, taxonomists, informaticians, policy-makers, and the like) have made it clear that in order to fulfill these needs, COL must transform from serving a list of species names, to providing more robust taxonomic names services. As a response to this, the Catalogue of Life consortium has renewed its infrastructure, ChecklistBank, in close collaboration with the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and other partners. With this change in infrastructure, COL is aspiring to increase the transparency in its operations, such as providing the criteria for inclusion of datasets in the COL Checklist. Where feasible, COL is also moving towards having taxonomic sectors maintained by active taxonomic communities. The new COL infrastructure provides stable anchoring points for taxonomic information, such as Digital Object Identifiers for COL Checklist releases and source datasets, and stable name identifiers. It also provides services such as downloads, comparisons between datasets, and name matching. As part of its strategy COL is working together with GBIF, ZooBank, and others to move towards stable taxon concept identifiers.