The document discusses the challenges and limitations of current backbone taxonomies in relation to data aggregation and its impact on early career systematists. It highlights issues such as synonymy, dirty data, and the need for better taxonomic structures to utilize available biodiversity data effectively. Additionally, it calls for empowering graduate students to curate and contribute to biodiversity data while suggesting improvements for a more inclusive taxonomic approach.

1. Backbone taxonomies, data aggregation,
and early career systematists:
Something's got to give
M. Andrew Johnston & Nico M. Franz
Hasbrouck Insect Collection, Arizona State University
@MAndrewJohnston
@taxonbytes
Slides: [Slideshare link]

2. Overview
• Introduction to backbone taxonomies
• Use cases with aggregated data
• Conflict with systematic research
• Available solutions and their limits

3. Backbone Taxonomies
What are they?
GBIF Backbone Taxonomy:
https://www.gbif.org/dataset/d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c

4. Backbone Taxonomies
Widely used

5. Aggregated data and darkling beetles
Eleodes Eschscholtz, 1829
208 Valid species
412 Available species-group names

6. Eleodes species in Arizona
34 verified
4 doubtful
38

7. 38
8,010 Eleodes specimens
from Arizona

8. 38
208
Darwin Core ‘scientificName’
208 unique strings (“names”)

9. 38
208
Darwin Core ‘scientificName’
Eleodes carbonaria chihuahuaensis
Champion, 1884
Previously valid combinations
eleodes carbonarius chihuahuaensis
eleodes lineatus
eleodes ampla
eleodes nitidus
eleodes lineata
eleodes amplus
eleodes carbonarius amplus
eleodes amplus dolosus
eleodes ampla dolosa
eleodes nitida
Taxonomic Issues I – Synonymy

10. 38
208
Darwin Core ‘scientificName’
Eleodes carbonaria chihuahuaensis
Champion, 1884
Subgeneric names included
eleodes (melaneleodes) amplus
eleodes melaneleodes lineata
eleodes melaneleodes amplus
Taxonomic Issues II – Dirty Data

11. 38
208
14
‘Accepted’ species from
backbone taxonomy
8 verified
6 doubtful

12. 38
208
14
Manually interpreted using
current literature
32 verified
14 doubtful
51

13. 38
208
14
Good data are available
But we need a good taxonomy
to realize their potential
51

14. Digitization of my research collection
(M. Andrew Johnston Collection – MAJC)
What about generating new data?

15. 2315 Eleodes records
74 taxa

16. 2315 Eleodes records
74 species/subspecies

17. 2315 Eleodes records
74 species/subspecies
Default view of data
705 specimens
“ID’d” to Eleodes
29 taxon names
recognized

18. Verbatim view of record, showing issue flags

19. Failure across (at least) Coleoptera
iPhylo Blog Post
iPhylo.blogspot.com
~85,000 Australian Coleoptera records
1/3 names are changed, affecting 1/5 records

20. Taxon coverage is identified as a hurdle
Darwin Core Hour: The Aggregator’s Viewpoint – GBIF and iDigBio

21. Name ‘discovered’ through
digitized type specimen
Can we fix a
taxonomic issue?

22. Amphidora Eschscholtz
synonym (Doyen and Lawrence, 1979)
Eleodes Eschscholtz
Can we fix a
taxonomic issue?

23. Amphidora Eschscholtz
synonym (Doyen and Lawrence, 1979)
Eleodes Eschscholtz
Can we fix a
taxonomic issue?
Amphidora parallela Casey
synonym (Blaisdell, 1933)
Stenotrichus rufipes (LeConte)
transferred (Aalbu et al. 2002)
Helops rufipes (LeConte)
Names not
known to GBIF

24. GBIF accepts feedback on any item

25. Logs issue on github, to be fixed in later patch

26. What we can offer:
• A large, distributed workforce

27. What we can offer:
• A large, distributed workforce
• Knowledge and access to literature

28. What we can offer:
• A large, distributed workforce
• Knowledge and access to literature
• Time and passion to curate our focal branch
of the tree of life

29. What we need:
• Editorial access to on-line biodiversity data

30. What we need:
• Editorial access to on-line biodiversity data
• Ability to share/impose our views on data
• Unfiltered and un-edited
• NOT the same as “mine is the only view”

31. What we need:
• Editorial access to on-line biodiversity data
• Ability to share/impose our views on data
• Unfiltered and un-edited
• NOT the same as “mine is the only view”
• Citations and metrics out of the system
• Every specimen added, editorial action taken
• To build reputation and CV

32. A solution for now
• Direct control over my
specimen data
• Immediately
interoperable with 170
other collections

33. Public, citable metrics

34. Direct access to edit backbone taxonomy
But … Need user account approval to make edits
Only one possible valid backbone

35. Publish checklists and interactive keys

36. Backbone taxonomy paradigm shift
Disambiguates ‘taxonomy’ and ‘classification’
Allows for multiple classification systems and concept taxonomy

37. Graduate students should be empowered
to use and curate biodiversity data
Summary

38. Graduate students should be empowered
to use and curate biodiversity data
Summary
Current backbone taxonomies alienate systematists

39. Graduate students should be empowered
to use and curate biodiversity data
Summary
Need to develop new, community-empowering designs
Current backbone taxonomies alienate systematists

40. Special thanks to:
Bob Mesibov Andrew Jansen
Ed Gilbert Brian Reily
Sal Anzaldo Sangmi Lee
Funding:
NSFARTS DEB-1258154
Evolutionary Biology
Summer Research Fellowship
Data files and scripts: github.com/mandrewj/ECN_backbone_taxonomies
Slides: [slideshare link]
Tenebrionidae taxonomy sec Bousquet et al. 2017. Catalogue of Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera) of
North America, Zookeys.
Thank You