Schellenberger Costa David, Boehnisch Gerhard, Freiberg Martin, Govaerts Rafaël, Grenié Matthias, Hassler Michael, Kattge Jens, Muellner-Riehl Alexandra N, Rojas Andrés Blanca M, Winter Marten, Watson Mark, Zizka Alexander, Wirth Christian
Department of Special Botany and Functional Biodiversity, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Leipzig, Johannisallee 21-23, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstr 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
New Phytol. 2023 Nov;240(4):1687-1702. doi: 10.1111/nph.18961. Epub 2023 May 27.
Taxonomic checklists used to verify published plant names and identify synonyms are a cornerstone of biological research. Four global authoritative checklists for vascular plants exist: Leipzig Catalogue of Vascular Plants, World Checklist of Vascular Plants, World Flora Online (successor of The Plant List, TPL), and WorldPlants. We compared these four checklists in terms of size and differences across taxa. We matched taxon names of these checklists and TPL against each other, identified differences across checklists, and evaluated the consistency of accepted names linked to individual taxon names. We assessed geographic and phylogenetic patterns of variance. All checklists differed strongly compared with TPL and provided identical information on c. 60% of plant names. Geographically, differences in checklists increased from low to high latitudes. Phylogenetically, we detected strong variability across families. A comparison of name-matching performance on taxon names submitted to the functional trait database TRY, and a check of completeness of accepted names evaluated against an independent, expert-curated checklist of the family Meliaceae, showed a similar performance across checklists. This study raises awareness on the differences in data and approach across these checklists potentially impacting analyses. We propose ideas on the way forward exploring synergies and harmonizing the four global checklists.
用于验证已发表植物名称并识别同义词的分类学清单是生物学研究的基石。目前存在四个全球权威性的维管植物清单:《莱比锡维管植物目录》、《维管植物世界清单》、《世界植物在线》(《植物名录》的继任者)以及《世界植物》。我们从规模和不同分类群间的差异方面对这四个清单进行了比较。我们将这些清单的分类单元名称与《植物名录》相互匹配,识别各清单间的差异,并评估与各个分类单元名称相关的接受名称的一致性。我们评估了地理和系统发育方面的差异模式。与《植物名录》相比,所有清单都有很大差异,并且在约60%的植物名称上提供了相同的信息。在地理上,清单间的差异从低纬度到高纬度逐渐增加。在系统发育方面,我们在不同科中检测到了很大的变异性。对提交给功能性状数据库TRY的分类单元名称的名称匹配性能进行比较,以及根据独立的、由专家整理的楝科清单对接受名称的完整性进行检查,结果表明各清单的表现相似。这项研究提高了人们对这些清单在数据和方法上的差异可能影响分析的认识。我们提出了关于探索协同效应并协调这四个全球清单的未来发展方向的想法。