Downloads

1. Garnett ST, Christidis L. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature. 2017;546(7656):25–27. pmid:28569833 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 2. Raposo MA, Stopiglia R, Brito GRR, Bockmann FA, Kirwan GM, Gayon J, Dubois A. What really hampers taxonomy and conservation? A riposte to Garnett and Christidis (2017). Zootaxa, 2017;4317(1), pp.179–184. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 3. Holstein N. and Luebert F., 2017. Taxonomy: stable taxon boundaries. Nature, 548(7666), pp.158–158. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 4. Cotterill FP., Groves CP., Taylor PJ., 2017. Taxonomy: refine rather than stabilize. Nature, 547(7662), pp.162–162. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 5. Jackson MD, Scherz MD, Zona S. 2017. Taxonomy is not beholden to its dependencies: a rebuttal to Garnett and Christidis (2017) PeerJ Preprints 5:e3060v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3060v1 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 6. Hollingsworth PM, 2017. Taxonomy: avoid extra bureaucracy. Nature, 546(7660), pp.600–600. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 7. Lambertz M., 2017. Taxonomy: retain scientific autonomy. Nature, 546(7660), pp.600–600. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 8. Funk VA, Herendeen P, Knapp S., 2017. Taxonomy: naming algae, fungi, plants. Nature, 546(7660), pp.599–599. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 9. Hey J, Waples RS, Arnold ML, Butlin RK, Harrison RG. Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2003;18(11):597–603. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 10. Thiele K, Yeates D. Tension arises from duality at the heart of taxonomy. Nature. 2002;419(6905):337. pmid:12353005 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 11. Thomson S. Management implications of poor alpha taxonomy. Aust. Wildl. Mgmt Soc. Newsl. 1997 March;14–16. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 12. Sangster G, Luksenburg JA. Declining rates of species described per taxonomist: slowdown of progress or a side-effect of improved quality in taxonomy? Syst Biol. 2014;64(1):144–151. pmid:25190593 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 13. Chapman AD. Numbers of living species in Australia and the World. 2nd ed. Canberra: Australian Biological Resources Study; 2009. 14. Kaiser H, Crother BI, Kelly CMR, Luiselli L, O’Shea M, Ota H, et al. Best practices: in the 21st century, taxonomic decisions in herpetology are acceptable only when supported by a body of evidence and published via peer-review. Herpetol Rev. 2013;44(1):8–23. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 15. Rhodin AGJ, Kaiser H, van Dijk PP, Wüster W, O’Shea M, Archer M, et al. Comment on Spracklandus Hoser, 2009 (Reptilia, Serpentes, ELAPIDAE): request for confirmation of availability of the generic name and for the nomenclatural validation of the journal in which it was published. Bull Zool Nomencl. 2015;72(1):65–78. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 16. De Queiroz K. 2007. Species Concepts and Species Delimitation. Systematic Biology, 56 (6): 879–886, https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701701083 pmid:18027281 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 17. Mayden R. L. 1997. A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. In Claridge M. F., Dawah H. A. & Wilson M. R. (eds.), Species: The units of diversity,. Chapman & Hall. pp. 381–423 18. Wheeler QD, Meier R. 2000. Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: a debate. Columbia University Press, New York 19. Zachos FE. 2016. Species concepts in biology. Historical development, theoretical foundations and practical relevance. Springer, Cham 20. Evans DM, Che-Castaldo JP, Crouse D, Davis FW, Epanchin-Niell R, Flather CH, et al. Species recovery in the United States: increasing the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Issues in Ecology. 2016;20:1–28. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 21. Morrison WR, Lohr JL, Duchen P, Wilches R, Trujillo D, Mair M, Renner SS. The impact of taxonomic change on conservation: Does it kill, can it save, or is it just irrelevant?. Biol Conserv. 2009;142(12):3201–3206. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 22. Gippoliti S, Cotterill FPD, Zinner D, Groves CP. Impacts of taxonomic inertia for the conservation of African ungulate diversity: an overview. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. pmid:28429851 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 23. CITES. Standard nomenclature. Resolution Conf. 12.11 (Rev. CoP17). [Cited 11 May 2017]. Available from: https://cites.org/eng/res/12/12-11R17.php. 24. Hazevoet CJ. Conservation and species lists: taxonomic neglect promotes the extinction of endemic birds, as exemplified by taxa from eastern Atlantic islands. Bird Conserv Int. 1996;6(2):181–196. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 25. Gutiérrez EE, Helgen KM. 2013. Outdated taxonomy blocks conservation. Nature, 495: 314. pmid:23518556 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 26. Costello MJ, May RM, Stork NE 2013. Response to Comments on “Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct?” Science 341, 237. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 27. Donegan T, Quevedo A, Verhelst JC, Cortés-Herrera O, Ellery T, Salaman P. Revision of the status of bird species occurring or reported in Colombia 2015, with discussion of BirdLife International’s new taxonomy. Conservación Colombiana. 2015;23:3–48. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 28. Franz N, Gilbert E, Ludäscher B, Weakley A. Controlling the taxonomic variable: taxonomic concept resolution for a southeastern United States herbarium portal. Research Ideas and Outcomes. 2016;2:e10610. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 29. Schuh RT. The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence. Bot Rev. 2003;69(1):59–78. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 30. Pickett STA, Ostfeld RS, Shachak M, Likens GE (eds). The ecological basis of conservation. Heterogeneity, ecosystems, and biodiversity. Dordrecht: Springer; 1997.