Wägele et al.

Frontiers in Zoology 2011, 8:25

http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/8/1/25

DEBATE Open Access

The taxonomist - an endangered race. A practical

proposal for its survival
Heike Wägele1*, Annette Klussmann-Kolb2, Michael Kuhlmann3, Gerhard Haszprunar4, David Lindberg5,
André Koch1 and J Wolfgang Wägele1

Abstract
Background: Taxonomy or biological systematics is the basic scientific discipline of biology, postulating
hypotheses of identity and relationships, on which all other natural sciences dealing with organisms relies.
However, the scientific contributions of taxonomists have been largely neglected when using species names in
scientific publications by not citing the authority on which they are based.
Discussion: Consequences of this neglect is reduced recognition of the importance of taxonomy, which in turn
results in diminished funding, lower interest from journals in publishing taxonomic research, and a reduced
number of young scientists entering the field. This has lead to the so-called taxonomic impediment at a time
when biodiversity studies are of critical importance.
Here we emphasize a practical and obvious solution to this dilemma. We propose that whenever a species name is
used, the author(s) of the species hypothesis be included and the original literature source cited, including
taxonomic revisions and identification literature - nothing more than what is done for every other hypothesis or
assumption included in a scientific publication. In addition, we postulate that journals primarily publishing
taxonomic studies should be indexed in ISISM.
Summary: The proposal outlined above would make visible the true contribution of taxonomists within the
scientific community, and would provide a more accurate assessment for funding agencies impact and importance
of taxonomy, and help in the recruitment of young scientists into the field, thus helping to alleviate the taxonomic
impediment. In addition, it would also make much of the biological literature more robust by reducing or
alleviating taxonomic uncertainty.
Keywords: Taxonomy crisis, taxonomic impediment, impact factor, original species description, citation index,
systematics

Background referenced, unique taxonomy are essential to all biologi-

Taxonomy or biological systematics is the science of dis- cal studies, because they are a prerequisite to enable the
covering, describing, classifying and naming organisms confirmation or refutation of any scientific study that
[1]. It dates from Aristotle, and thus is the oldest disci- reports on these taxa or their components. Only if a
pline in biology. It forms the basis for all other scientific species’ identity is unambiguous, can the study be con-
disciplines dealing with the study of life, its structure, sidered robust enough to discuss species-specific traits
function and evolution. Taxonomic knowledge is para- or attributes with colleagues or convey them to the
mount whether studying whole organisms, their organs, scientific community and general public. Identification
their specific bio-molecules or biochemical pathways. of a species utilized in a study impacts all subsequent
Unambiguously identified organisms in the sense of comparisons, predictions, and possible replication of the
study. It might be argued that the identification of the
study organism is irrelevant when examining basic pro-
* Correspondence: [email protected] cesses such as membrane transport mechanisms, photo-
1
Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160,
53113 Bonn, Germany synthetic cycles in plants, etc. However, this is not the
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© 2011 Wägele et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Wägele et al. Frontiers in Zoology 2011, 8:25 Page 2 of 7
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/8/1/25

case as many pathways of physiological processes are The availability of species identifications for life
adapted in the organism to the specific environmental science studies is often taken for granted. Currently,
conditions and this must be taken into consideration about 1.7 Mio metazoan species have been described
whenever conclusions are generalized beyond the study and it is assumed that tenfold as many species inhabit
organism. For example, the eubacterium Thermus aqua- our world [8,10,19,20] (but see Castello et al. 2011[21]).
ticus Brock & Freeze, 1969 [2] is restricted to hot Studies of biodiversity are critical [10] and have been
springs and is the only species known (and famous for) mandated by many countries where conservation and
possessing the Taq-Polymerase [3]. In addition, medical sustainable use of natural resources have become mat-
studies reporting on the leech Hirudo medicinalis Lin- ters of scientific and public concern [22-24]. Taxonomy
naeus, 1758 [4] have been shown to have actually stu- is fundamentally important in ensuring the quality of
died several distinct yet morphologically cryptic leech life of future human generations on the planet.
species [5,6]. Given the importance of this species in
neurobiology and the study of anticoagulants, it is criti- Discussion
cal that workers associate leech identifications with a There is no question that taxonomists provide insights
referenced, unique taxonomy rather than use a non-spe- into alpha biodiversity, provide names for communica-
cific, general species name. The identification of the spe- tion, and are at the forefront documenting the biological
cies is the first step in almost any biological or related richness of our planet. Consequently, they must be
study. recognized for their contributions and should be consid-
In many cases species identifications are difficult, and ered an important resource within biology and the asso-
it is not surprising that a staggering number of species ciated life science, as well as by the general public.
remain undescribed [7-10]. Add to this the scarcity of Moreover, journals and other publication media that
knowledgeable taxonomists [11] (particularly in third convey this taxonomic knowledge should be considered
world and developing countries [12]), often referred to as valuable as journals dedicated to other scientific sub-
as the “taxonomic impediment” [1,13-16], and it is jects and findings. However, today we are faced with
understandable why certain biological disciplines have exactly the opposite scenario. Despite the increasing
chosen “taxonomy-free” research subjects. In particular, importance of taxonomists in today’s biodiversity crisis,
many biodiversity and ecological research programs pur- most taxonomists are faced with decreasing funding, as
sue directions that do not require estimates of the actual well as editorial resistance to publishing their work in
(alpha) diversity of ecosystems. Instead proxies such as the high impact journals that will secure tenure and
biomass production, measurements of evaporation, CO2 promotion and allow them to continue their work and
storage, functional groups, or the focusing on a few contributions [18,25,26].
selected and well-known taxonomic groups (such as Taxonomists are often looked upon by colleagues as
“birds”, “bats”, or “trees’) are substitute for measure- bureaucratic accountants and their research programs
ments of alpha biodiversity [17]. In addition, funding to are not recognized as the intellectually challenging and
include alpha diversity studies across a wide variety of hypotheses-driven science that it has become [27-29].
groups making up the community or occurring in the Today’s taxonomist must have a thorough knowledge of
habitat is seldom allocated or made available. the literature, of theoretical species concepts, phyloge-
Taxonomy is the discipline in biology where scien- netic and analytical methodology, the application of var-
tists assign to taxa unique identities, and these ious phenotypic visualization techniques (e.g., anatomy,
research products are subsequently used by others to histology, fine-structure, imaging, 3-D reconstruction),
identify further individuals that can be used with confi- molecular staining, as well as molecular markers for
dence by colleagues in other scientific disciplines. everything from barcoding to genomics. When taxo-
Many of these other disciplines often include investiga- nomic hypotheses are implemented as published
tions of smaller components of diversity, such as pro- descriptions they are subject to future revisions (i.e.,
teins and genes and larger cell components, but they replication) with the possibility of either confirmation or
also include population studies, habitat characteriza- rejection just as any other scientific hypothesis [29]. All
tion, environmental monitoring and systemic model- this notwithstanding, the work done by the species’
ling; investigations that include all types of organisms, author(s) is rarely accredited [26,30,31]. Sometimes the
from bacteria and protists to vertebrates and plants - author’s name is included with the scientific name, but
the entire Tree of Life. The potential consequences of this citation is rarely included in the publication’s refer-
flawed taxonomy leading to error-cascades affecting ences or literature cited. The genetic model organisms
scientific hypotheses and ideas are commonly underes- Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 [32] and Arabi-
timated or ignored, but may have serious ecological dopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. [33], for instance, are among
and economic implications [18]. the most prominent species cited in scientific
Wägele et al. Frontiers in Zoology 2011, 8:25 Page 3 of 7
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/8/1/25

Table 1 Discrepancies between the use of species names in scientific publications and citations of the original authors
Scientific species name, Common Google scholar hits of Google scholar hits of ISISM web of knowledge hits of
original author, number species name publications using the publications citing the original publications citing the original
of citation species name author(s) and description author(s) and description
Model organisms
Escherichia coli (Migula, E. coli ca. 1.640.000 ca. 58 -
1895) [39]
Arabidopsis thaliana Mouse-ear ca. 232.000 19 -
(Linnaeus, 1763)a [33] cress
Drosophila melanogaster Fruit fly ca. 352.000 ca. 200 -
Meigen, 1830 [32]
Caenorhabditis elegans - ca. 173.000 52 -
(Maupas, 1899) [58]
Mus musculus Linnaeus, House mouse ca. 108.000 ca. 300* -
1758 [4]
Trichoplax adhaerens - ca. 719 ca. 70 -
Schulze, 1883 [59]
Lycopoidoides Spikemoss ca. 560 155** -
moellendorffii (Hieronymus, (Selaginella
1902)a [60] moellendorffii)
Amphimedon Sponge ca. 335 9 7
queenslandica Hooper &
van Soest, 2006 [61]
Macrostomum lignano Flatworm ca. 150 25 34
Ladurner et al., 2005 [62]
Invasive species
Batrachochytrium Chytrid fungus ca. 2130 317 246
dendrobatidis Longcore et
al., 1999 [63]
Boiga irregularis (Bechstein, Brown tree ca. 1760 1 -
1802) [64] snake
Eleutherodactylus coqui Common ca. 1510 16 -
Thomas, 1966 [65] Puerto Rican
Coqui frog
Cameraria ohridella Horse-chestnut ca. 1320 ca. 30 Journal not indexed
Deschka & Dimic, 1986 leaf miner
[66]
Prominent species
Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn, T. rex ca. 5410 ca. 30 -
1905 [67]
Metasequoia Dawn ca. 2510 53/58 -
glyptostroboides Hu & redwood
Cheng, 1948 [68]
Latimeria chalumnae West Indian ca. 2070 325 -
Smith, 1939 [69] Ocean
coelacanth
Homo floresiensis Brown et Flores man, ca. 1400 245 244
al. 2004 [70] nicknamed
“hobbit”
Varanus komodoensis Komodo ca. 1010 10 -
Ouwens, 1912 [71] dragon
Recently described species
Euperipatoides Onychophora 1800 33 47
kanangrensis Reid, 1996
[72]
Cryptocorynetes Remipedia 296 121 24
haptodiscus Yager, 1987
[73]
Wägele et al. Frontiers in Zoology 2011, 8:25 Page 4 of 7
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/8/1/25

Table 1 Discrepancies between the use of species names in scientific publications and citations of the original authors
(Continued)
Latimeria menadoensis Indonesian ca. 235 11 23
Pouyaud, 1999 [74] coelacanth
We compared hit results of online queries for species names used in publications listed by Google scholar and ISISM web of knowledge and those publications
citing the original authors and descriptions. Full citations are given in the references section of this paper. Note that ISISM web includes only hits after 1945.
a
We have altered the abbreviated botanical format of the original author into the zoological format, which provides the author name in full length with the year
of publication.
* Citations refer to the different spellings of the author’s name (i.e., Linné, von Linné, and Linnaeus) and the entire tenth edition.
** Citations refer to the whole series “Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien (...)”, which was published between 1887 and 1909 in numerous volumes.

publications (about 352.000 and 232.000 citations, propose the following guidelines:
respectively). In sharp contrast, the original scientific
descriptions of both these species are cited 0 and 19 1. Any study based on a formally named organism
times, respectively. Other frequently studied and promi- should include the citation of the original author(s)
nent examples, including more recently described spe- and date. We acknowledge that this is already prac-
cies, are presented in Table 1. ticed in many, but by no means all journals. In addi-
Subsequent taxonomic revisions that consolidate taxa tion, this citation must be included in the literature
(i.e., synonymization) or split species into different sub- cited - a practice that is currently extremely rare (e.
clades are also usually neglected. Out of the 2270 cita- g., Peersonia; Phytotaxa; Blumea; Organisms, Diver-
tions found on Hirudo medicinalis in Google scholar for sity & Evolution [37], European Journal of Taxon-
the year 2010, only 41 mentioned the presence of cryp- omy) or not obligatory, but encouraged (e.g.,
tic species and former misidentifications of H. medicina- Zootaxa).
lis and H. verbena Carena, 1820 [34]. Hence, more than 2. All published taxonomic sources (monographs,
95% of the analyses published in 2010 that explicitly identification keys, primary taxonomic literature and
dealt with H. medicinalis (covering a broad array of sub- revisions) used for identification or as a source of
jects, like genomes, proteomes, gene syntheses, medical nomenclatural information (e.g., catalogues) should
novelties, etc.) cannot be clearly assigned to this species, be cited as any other methodological paper would
nor to either of the two undescribed species within the be. The lack of these citations precludes an assess-
H. medicinalis species complex [5,6], nor to the fre- ment of quality and reliability of the identification(s)
quently misidentified H. verbena. Citing the original and associated taxonomic information. Thus, inde-
publication in which the cryptic species problem had pendent verification of results and conclusions - the
been unravelled would have immediately demonstrated fundament of science - is not possible.
the authors’ awareness of this problem and its potential 3. Researchers are encouraged to include taxono-
consequences, and would have increased confidence in mists as co-authors when they have made substantial
the author’s publication. contributions to the research program or where the
Recently, several declarations and suggestions have conclusions of the paper are solely dependent on the
been published in favour of taxonomy, including argu- accurate identification of the study taxon.
ments for more funding, better education, or recruiting
parataxonomists and amateurs [11,16,35]. While these One of the leading journals in ecology, Ecology Let-
appeals are certainly justified, they will not be effective ters, follows the proposed guidelines, with the exception
as long as the work of taxonomists is neglected or of well-established species such as Homo sapiens Lin-
viewed as unimportant and self-evident (and therefore naeus, 1758 [38], Drosophila melanogaster and Escheri-
not worthy of citation) by colleagues in other natural chia coli (Migula, 1895) [39]. A most recent suggestion
science disciplines. We therefore here emphasize the [40] dealt with a solution for special citation of taxo-
need for a fair practice mentioned by Werner in 2006 nomic work when used in wiki pages by combining
[30] and Seifert et al. in 2008 [36] that would help to both the original non-wiki source and the respective
recognize the value of taxonomic work and thus to wiki page.
place taxonomy back into mainstream biology and pro- It might be argued that publications that are based on
vide a measure of its impact. This accurate accounting studies of multiple species, such as large phylogenetic
of the value of taxonomic studies will also provide famil- analyses of an entire metazoan or plant group (e.g., a
iar metrics for colleagues and administrators, and will be phylogenetic analysis of beetles) or monitoring projects,
invaluable in the allocation of funding and the long term might lead to an inflation of certain citations or journals
recruitment of young taxonomists. We therefore [30,37]. However, this is no different than the long lists
Wägele et al. Frontiers in Zoology 2011, 8:25 Page 5 of 7
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/8/1/25

of GenBank entries for sequences or alignments that more than 90 percent of all taxonomic journals are not
have come to dominate our publications and associated indexed so that the overwhelming numbers of taxo-
supplementary materials. Also, arguments that it is diffi- nomic citations are simply not counted. The inclusion
cult to deal with the older literature are becoming in the ISISM data base will increase the awareness of the
increasingly obsolete as the number of online taxonomic journal and guarantee a more accurate calculation of
databases (e.g., BHL, EoL, Gallica, AnimalBase, and journal and author citation metrics. We estimate that
others) rapidly increases. Authors working on projects indexing half of all taxonomic journals available today
involving large species data sets would also be more would increase citation indices (CIs) fivefold.
likely to seek out taxonomists for assistance with subse-
quent co-authorship - already a common practice for Summary
bioinformatical or mathematical problems in phyloge- Taxonomic work has profound implications for all kinds
netic or statistical analyses. This will increase communi- of scientific disciplines. Previous attempts of a few col-
cation and collaboration as well as the accuracy and leagues to encourage citation policies concerning taxo-
usefulness of the vetted work. nomic descriptions [30,36] have been largely ignored.
It might also be argued that citing old literature is not Therefore, we once again emphatically appeal to collea-
necessary and that taxonomic hypotheses should be gues and editors of journals for a much broader
handled as in other disciplines: these hypotheses become acknowledgement of the scientific work of taxonomists.
“general knowledge” and no longer require citation, such The citation protocol as outlined above would give fair
as the seminal discoveries of natural selection published credit and recognition to those scientists who have dedi-
by Wallace in 1855 [41] and Darwin in 1859 [42], or of cated their research careers to unveiling the earth’s bio-
plate tectonics published by Wegener in 1912 [43]. diversity and to the journals who have specialized in
However, as was shown with the example of Hirudo reporting these results. Currently, neither is recognized
medicinalis, even “well-established” species can become for their important contributions irrespective of their
imprecise, and refined hypotheses with new species geographical location [1]. In addition, citation of species
names must be formulated. Especially in the time of and taxon authorities will validate the taxonomic names
molecular analyses, we can expect many more surprises used in scientific studies and will increase the robust-
with broad implications for various fields, including ness and usefulness of their results.
human welfare. The recent findings [44] of unknown We are well aware of the severe shortcomings and weak-
subgroups within the Anopheles gambiae Giles, 1902 nesses of CIs in systematics and taxonomy [16,26,55-57].
[45] complex [46] that exhibit a high susceptibility to However, we cannot ignore the system and its impact;
infection with wild Plasmodium falciparum (Welch, instead we should fully participate to ensure fair and accu-
1897) [47] must be cited in future analyses to acknowl- rate representation of our colleagues and journals. The
edge one’s awareness of sympatric species with different citation protocol outlined above will require little addi-
ecological and behavioral strategies within the same tional investment by researchers and editors, but would be
strains. The finding of cryptic species in spitting cobras an important acknowledgement of the vital contributions
[48], as well as the rearrangement of the large species of taxonomists and hopefully increase the survival rate of
complex of the Asian pitvipers into distinct genera [49] this endangered group of scientists.
has a direct implication on categorization of their medi-
cal importance, as well as antivenin indication, prescrip-
Acknowledgements
tion and research [50]. Results like these are not We thank W. Sudhaus (Berlin) for identifying the correct first citation of
restricted to small and cryptic living species but also Caenorhabditis elegans. We also want to thank the reviewers for their
comprise large animals such as turtles, monitor lizards, valuable comments and suggestions for relevant literature. Lily Wescott
(Bonn) helped in polishing the language.
antelopes or bovids [51-53] with direct implications on
conservation biology and related fields [53,54]. Hence it Author details
1
is more important than ever to include all means used Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160,
53113 Bonn, Germany. 2Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity,
for identification, so that the authors’ awareness of taxo- Goethe-University, Siesmayerstrasse 70, 60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
nomic problems that can potentially confound their 3
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
study, including species concepts applied [10], is obvious London SW7 5BD, UK. 4Zoologische Staatssammlung München,
Münchhausenstraße 21, 81247 München, Germany. 5Department of
to the readers of their published results. Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology, University of California,
In addition, we would encourage all taxonomists, who Berkeley, CA 94720-4780, USA.
are in one way or another responsible for journal
Authors’ contributions
administration to ensure that their publications are HW initiated and drafted the manuscript, all other authors contributed
indexed by ISISM. Based on the situation in molluscan equally to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final
literature (pers. comm. P. Mikkelsen), we assume that manuscript.
Wägele et al. Frontiers in Zoology 2011, 8:25 Page 6 of 7
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/8/1/25

Author information 17. Moreno CE, Halffter G: Assessing the completeness of bat biodiversity
1
Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, inventories using species accumulation curves. J Appl Ecol 2000,
53113 Bonn, Germany 37:149-158.
2
Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, Goethe-University, 18. Bortolus A: Error cascades in the biological sciences: the unwanted
Siesmayerstrasse 70, 60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany consequences of using bad taxonomy in ecology. AMBIO 2008,
3
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 37:114-118.
London SW7 5BD, UK 19. May RM: How many species are there on earth? Science 1998,
4
Zoologische Staatssammlung München, Münchhausenstraße 21, 81247 241:1441-1449.
München, Germany 20. Chapman AD: Numbers of Living Species in Australia and the World. 2
5
Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology, University edition. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government; 2009.
of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-4780, USA 21. Costello MJ, Wilson S, Houlding B: Predicting total global species richness
using rates of species description and estimates of taxonomic effort. Syst
Competing interests Biol 2011, [Epub ahead of print].
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 22. Heywood VH: The Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment
Programme Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
Received: 20 May 2011 Accepted: 26 October 2011 23. Groombridge B: Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. A
Published: 26 October 2011 Report compiles by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre London,
Glasgow, New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras: Chapman & Hall; 1992.
References 24. McCook LJ, Ayling T, Cappo M, Choate JH, Evans RD, De Freitas DM,
1. Tancoigne E, Bole C, Sigogneau A, Dubois A: Insights from Zootaxa on Heupel M, Hughes TP, Jones GP, Mapstone B, Marsh H, Mills M, Molloy FJ,
potential trends in zoological taxonomic activity. Front Zoology 2011, 8:5. Pitcher CR, Pressey RL, Russ GR, Sutton S, Sweatman H, Tobin R,
2. Brock TD, Freeze H: Thermus aquaticus gen. n. and sp. n., a Wachenfeld DR, Williamson DH: Adaptive management of the Great
nonsporulating extreme thermophile. J Bact 1969, 98:289-297. Barrier Reef: A globally significant demonstration of the benefits of
3. Saiki RK, Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, Scharf ST, Higuchi R, Horn GT, Mullis KB, networks of marine reserves. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010, 107:18278-18285.
Erlich HA: Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a 25. Boero F: The study of species in the era of biodiversity: a tale of
thermostable DNA polymerase. Science 1988, 239:487-491. stupidity. Diversity 2010, 2:115-126.
4. Linnaeus C: Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, 26. Werner YL: The aspiration to be good is bad: The “Impact Factor” hurts
ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis Editio both science and society. Int J Sci Soc 2009, 1:99-105.
decima. Holmiæ (= Stockholm): Laurentius Salvius; 1758. 27. Dayrat B: Toward integrative taxonomy. Biol J Linn Soc 2005, 85:407-415.
5. Siddall ME, Trontelj P, Utevsky SY, Nkamany M, McDonald KS: Diverse 28. Padial JM, Miralles A, Riva IDl, Vences M: The integrative future of
molecular data demonstrate that commercially available medicinal taxonomy. Front Zool 2010, 7:16.
leeches are not Hirudo medicinalis. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 2007, 29. Haszprunar G: Species delimitations - not “only descriptive”. Org Divers
274:1481-1487. Evol 2011, 11:249-252.
6. Phillips AJ, Siddall ME: Poly-paraphyly of Hirudinidae: many lineages of 30. Werner YL: The case of impact factor versus taxonomy: a proposal. J Nat
medicinal leeches. BMC Evol Biol 2009, 9:246. Hist 2006, 40:1285-1286.
7. Pfenninger M, Schwenk K: Cryptic animal species are homogeneously 31. Velde van der G: Taxonomists make a name for themselves. Nature 2001,
distributed among taxa and biogeographical regions. BMC Evol Biol 2007, 414:148.
7:121. 32. Meigen JW: Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europäischen
8. De Broyer C, Danis B: How many species in the Southern Ocean? zweiflügeligen Insekten, sechster Theil mit 12 Kupfertafeln Hamm: Schulz; 1830.
Towards a dynamic inventory of the Antarctic marine species. Deep-Sea 33. Linnaeus C: Species plantarum: exhibentes plantas rite cognitas, ad genera
Research II 2011, 58:5-17. relatas, cum differentiis specificis, nominibus trivialibus, synonymis selectis, locis
9. Bebber DP, Carine MA, Wood JRI, Wortley AH, Harris DJ, Prance GT, natalibus, secundum systema sexuale digestas. Editio Secunda, Tomus II
Davidse G, Paige J, Pennington TD, Robson NKB, Scotland RW: Herbaria are Laurentius Salvius: Holmiæ (= Stockholm); 1763.
a major frontier for species discovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010, 34. Carena H: Monographie du genre Hirudo ou description des espèces de
107:22169-22171. sangesues qui se trouvent ou qui sont en usage en piémont, avec des
10. Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpson AGB, Worm B: How many species are observations sur la génération, et sur d’autres points de l’histoire
there on Earth and in the Ocean. PLoS Biology 2011, 9:e1001127. naturelle de quelques unes de ces espèces. Mem R Accad Torino 1820,
11. Pearson DL, Hamilton AL, Erwin TL: Recovery plan for the endangered 25:273-316.
taxonomy profession. BioScience 2011, 61:58-63. 35. Mayo SJ, Allkin R, Baker W, Blagoderov V, Brake I, Clark B, Govaerts R,
12. Global Taxonomy Initiative website (GTI): How many taxonomists are Godfray C, Haigh A, Hand R, Harman K, Jackson M, Kilian N, Kirkup DW,
there?[http://www.gti-kontaktstelle.de/english/taxonomy_E.html#brazilNo], Kitching I, Knapp S, Lewis GP, Malcolm P, von Raab-Straube E, Roberts DM,
(last access 10th of May 2011). Scoble M, Simpson DA, Smith C, Smith V, Villalba S, Walley L, Wilkin P:
13. De Carvalho MR, Bockmann FA, Amorim DS, de Vivo M, de Toldeo-Piza M, Alpha e-taxonomy: responses from the systematics community to the
Menezes NA, de Figueiredo JL, Castro RMC, Gill AC, McEachran JD, biodiversity crisis. Kew Bull 2008, 63:1-16.
Compagno LJV, Schelly RC, Britz R, Lundberg JG, Vari RP, Nelson G: 36. Seifert KA, Crous PW, Frisvad JC: Correcting the impact factors of
Revisiting the taxonomic impediment. Science 2005, 307:353. taxonomic journals by appropriate citation of taxonomy (ACT). Peersonia
14. De Carvalho MR, Bockmann FA, Amorim DS, Brandão CRF, de Vivo M, de 2008, 20:105.
Figueiredo JL, Britski HA, de Pinna MCC, Menezes NA, Marques FPL, 37. Bininda-Emonds ORP: Supporting species in ODE: explaining and citing.
Papavero N, Cancello EM, Crisci JV, McEachran JD, Schelly RC, Lundberg JG, Org Divers Evol 2011, 11:1-2.
Gill AC, Britz R, Wheeler QD, Stiassny MLJ, Parenti LR, Page LM, Wheeler WC, 38. Linnaeus C: Systema naturæ per regna tria naturæ, secundum classes, ordines,
Faivovich J, Vari RP, Grande L, Humphries CJ, DeSalle R, Ebach MC, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Edicio
Nelson G: Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A decima Laurentius Salvius: Holmiæ (= Stockholm); 1758.
commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation 39. Migula W: Bacteriaceae (Stäbchenbakterien). In Die Natürlichen
paradigm. BMC Evol Biol 2007, 34:140-143. Pflanzenfamilien. Edited by: Teil I, Abteilung Ia Engler A, Prantl K. Leipzig: W.
15. Patterson DJ: Future Taxonomy. In Systema Naturae 250 - the Linnean Ark. Engelmann; 1895:20-30.
Edited by: Polaszek A. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010:115-124. 40. Penev L, Hagedorn G, Mietchen D, Georgiev T, Stoev P, Sautter G, Agosti D,
16. Ebach MC, Valdecasas AG, Wheeler QD: Impediments to taxonomy and Plank A, Balke M, Hendrich L, Erwin T: Interlinking journal and wiki
users of taxonomy: accessibility and impact evaluation. Cladistics 2011, publications through joint citation: Working examples from ZooKeys
27:1-8. and Plazi on Species-ID. Zookeys 2011, 90:1-12.
41. Wallace AR: On the law which has regulated the introduction of new
species. Ann Mag Nat Hist 1855, 16:184-196.
Wägele et al. Frontiers in Zoology 2011, 8:25 Page 7 of 7
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/8/1/25

42. Darwin C: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the 65. Thomas R: New species of Antillean Eleutherodactylus. Q J Flor Acad Sci
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life London: John Murray; 1966, 28:375-391.
1859. 66. Deschka G, Dimic N: Cameraria ohridella n. sp. aus Mazedonien,
43. Wegener A: Die Entstehung der Kontinente. Peterm Mitt 1912, 81:185-195, Jugoslawien (Lepidoptera, Lithocolletidae). Acta Ent Jug 1986, 22:11-23.
253-256, 305-309. 67. Osborn HF: Tyrannosaurus and other Cretaceous carnivorous dinosaurs.
44. Rhiele MM, Guelbeogo WM, Gneme A, Eiglmeier K, Holm I, Bischoff E, Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 1905, 21:259-265.
Garnier T, Snyder GM, Li X, Markianos K, Sagnon N, Vernick KD: A cryptic 68. Hu HH, Cheng WC: On the new family Metasequoiaceae and on
subgroup of Anopheles gambiae is highly susceptible to human malaria Metasequoia glyptostroboides, a living species of the genus Metasequoia
parasites. Science 2011, 331:596-598. found in Szechuan and Hupeh. Bull Fan Mem Inst Biol, new series 1948,
45. Giles GM: A handbook of the gnats or mosquitoes giving the anatomy and 1:153-161.
life history of the Culicidae, together with descriptions of all species notices up 69. Smith JLB: A living coelacanthid fish from South Africa. Nature 1939,
to the present date. 2 edition. rewritten and enlarged. London; 1902. 143:748-750.
46. White GB, Rosen P: Comparative studies on sibling species of the 70. Brown P, Sutikna T, Morwood MJ, Soejono RP, Wayhu Saptomo E,
Anopheles gambiae Giles complex (Dipt., Culicidae). II. Ecology of species Rokus AD: A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of
A and B in savanna around Kaduna, Nigeria, during transition from wet Flores, Indonesia. Nature 2004, 431:1055-1061.
to dry season. Bull Entomol Res 1973, 62:613-625. 71. Ouwens PA: On a large Varanus species from the Island of Komodo. Bull
47. Welch WH: Malaria: definition, synonyms, history, and parasitology. In Jard Bot Buitenzorg 1912, 6:1-3.
System of Practical Medicine. Volume 1. Edited by: Loomis AL and Thompson 72. Reid AL: Review of the Peripatopsidae (Onychophora) in Australia, with
WG. New York and Philadelphia: Lea Brothers 1897:17-76. comments on peripatopsid relationships. Invertebr Taxonomy 1996,
48. Wüster W, Thorpe RS: Naja siamensis, a cryptic species of venomous 10:663-936.
snake revealed by mtDNA sequencing. Experientia 1994, 50:75-79. 73. Yager J: Cryptocorynetes haptodiscus, a new genus, new species, and
49. Malhotra A, Thorpe RS: A phylogeny of four mitochondrial gene regions Speleonectes benjamini, new species, or remipede crustaceans from
suggests a revised taxonomy for Asian pitvipers (Trimeresurus and achialine caves in the Bahamas, with remarks on distribution and
Ovophis). Mol Phyl Evol 2004, 32:83-100. ecology. Proc Biol Soc Wash 1987, 100:302-320.
50. WHO Guidelines for the production control and regulation of snake 74. Pouyaud L, Wirjoatmodjo S, Rachmatika I, Tjakrawidjaja A, Hadiaty R,
antivenom immunoglobulins World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO Press; Hadie W: Une nouvelle espèce de coelacanthe: preuves génétiques et
2010. morphologiques. C R Acad Sci III-Vie 1999, 322:261-267.
51. Stuckas H, Fritz U: Identity of Pelodiscus sinensis revealed by DNA
sequences of an approximately 180-year-old type specimen and a doi:10.1186/1742-9994-8-25
taxonomic reappraisal of Pelodiscus species (Testudines: Trionychidae). J Cite this article as: Wägele et al.: The taxonomist - an endangered race.
Zool Syst Evol Res 2011, 49:177-255. A practical proposal for its survival. Frontiers in Zoology 2011 8:25.
52. Koch A, Arida E, Schmitz A, Böhme W, Ziegler T: Refining the polytypic
species concept of mangrove monitors (Squamata Varanus indicus
group): a new cryptic species from the Talaud Islands, Indonesia, reveals
the underestimated diversity of Indo-Australian monitor lizards. Austr J
Zool 2009, 57:29-40.
53. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR: Discoveries of new mammal species and their
implications for conservation and ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci
2009, 106:3841-3846.
54. Bickford D, Lohmann DJ, Sodhi NS, Ng PKL, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram KK,
Das I: Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends
Ecol Evol 2007, 22:148-155.
55. Krell F-T: Why impact factors don’t work for taxonomy. Nature 2002,
415:957.
56. Valdecasas AG, Castroviejo S, Marcus LF: Reliance on the citation index
undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature 2000, 403:698.
57. Lawrence PA: The mismeasurement of science. Curr Biol 2007, 17:
R583-585.
58. Maupas E: La mue et l’enkystement chez les nématodes. Arch Zool exp
gén, (3e. Série) 1899, 7:563-628.
59. Schulze FE: Trichoplax adhaerens nov. gen., nov. spec. Zool Anz 1883,
6:92-97.
60. Hieronymus G: Selaginellaceae. In Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien nebst
ihren Gattungen und wichtigeren Arten, insbesondere den Nutzpflanzen, unter
Mitwirkung zahlreicher hervorragender Fachgelehrten. Teil 1, Abteilung 4a.
Edited by: Engler A, Prantl K. Leipzig: W. Engelmann; 1902:621-716.
61. Hooper JNA, van Soest RWM: A new species of Amphimedon (Porifera,
Demospongiae, Haplosclerida, Niphatidae) from the Capricorn-Bunker
Group of Islands, Great Barrier Reef, Australia: target species for the Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
‘sponge genome project’. Zootaxa 2006, 1314:31-39. and take full advantage of:
62. Ladurner P, Schärer L, Salvenmoser W, Rieger R: A new model organism
among the lower Bilateria and the use of digital microscopy in
• Convenient online submission
taxonomy of meiobenthic Platyhelminthes Macrostomum lignano, n. sp.
(Rhabditophora, Macrostomorpha). J Zool Syst Evol Res 2005, 43:114-126. • Thorough peer review
63. Longcore JE, Pessier AP, Nichols DK: Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis gen. • No space constraints or color figure charges
et sp. nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibiens. Mycologia 1999,
91:219-227. • Immediate publication on acceptance
64. Bechstein JM: Herrn de Lacépède’s Naturgeschichte der Amphibien oder der • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
eyerlegenden vierfüssigen Thiere und der Schlangen. Eine Fortsetzung von
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Buffon’s Naturgeschichte aus dem Französischen übersetzt und mit
Anmerkungen und Zusätzen versehen Weimar: Industrie Comptoir; 1802.
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit