RE: Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

IF 1.5 3区 生物学 Q2 ZOOLOGY
Brian S Arbogast, Nicholas J Kerhoulas
{"title":"RE: Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities","authors":"Brian S Arbogast, Nicholas J Kerhoulas","doi":"10.1093/jmammal/gyae018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent paper titled Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities, Marsh et al. (2022) introduced a series of new geographic range maps for all extant species of mammals and made these maps available on the Map of Life (MoL) website (www.mol.org). The title of the paper and inclusion of over 140 prominent mammalogists and biogeographers as coauthors strongly suggested that these new range maps were carefully vetted. However, when examining the maps of Marsh et al. (2022) on the MoL web platform, we found a variety of serious problems, including, but not limited to: range exaggerations (inclusion of substantial geographic areas not represented by specimen records or verified observations); range maps that are geographically shifted so that species are shown as occurring in areas in which they do not, and not occurring in areas in which they do (and in some cases, these new maps do not even encompass the type locality of a species); range maps that simply omit peripheral populations of conservation concern; and range maps for fully marine mammals (i.e., those that do not spend any time on land) that include large swaths of both insular and continental landmasses. Overall, we evaluated the new “expert” mammal range maps on the MoL platform for 78 species (retrieved between 31 March 2022 and 1 April 2023) and show that there are serious, systemic problems with these maps, and that these problems are both geographically and taxonomically widespread. As such, we caution researchers to carefully review and evaluate the range maps of Marsh et al. (2022) on the MoL before using them for any research purpose—including conservation, biogeographical, and macroecological analyses of mammals.","PeriodicalId":50157,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mammalogy","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mammalogy","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyae018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ZOOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a recent paper titled Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities, Marsh et al. (2022) introduced a series of new geographic range maps for all extant species of mammals and made these maps available on the Map of Life (MoL) website (www.mol.org). The title of the paper and inclusion of over 140 prominent mammalogists and biogeographers as coauthors strongly suggested that these new range maps were carefully vetted. However, when examining the maps of Marsh et al. (2022) on the MoL web platform, we found a variety of serious problems, including, but not limited to: range exaggerations (inclusion of substantial geographic areas not represented by specimen records or verified observations); range maps that are geographically shifted so that species are shown as occurring in areas in which they do not, and not occurring in areas in which they do (and in some cases, these new maps do not even encompass the type locality of a species); range maps that simply omit peripheral populations of conservation concern; and range maps for fully marine mammals (i.e., those that do not spend any time on land) that include large swaths of both insular and continental landmasses. Overall, we evaluated the new “expert” mammal range maps on the MoL platform for 78 species (retrieved between 31 March 2022 and 1 April 2023) and show that there are serious, systemic problems with these maps, and that these problems are both geographically and taxonomically widespread. As such, we caution researchers to carefully review and evaluate the range maps of Marsh et al. (2022) on the MoL before using them for any research purpose—including conservation, biogeographical, and macroecological analyses of mammals.
RE:全球哺乳动物分布专家分布图与三个分类学权威机构统一
马什等人(2022年)最近发表了一篇题为《与三个分类学权威机构协调的全球哺乳动物分布专家分布图》的论文,介绍了一系列新的哺乳动物现存物种地理分布图,并将这些分布图公布在生命地图(MoL)网站上(www.mol.org)。该论文的标题以及 140 多位著名哺乳动物学家和生物地理学家作为共同作者的加入,强烈表明这些新的分布图是经过仔细审核的。然而,当在地图集上查看马什等人(2022 年)的地图时,却发现这些地图都是经过仔细审核的。(2022)时,我们发现了各种严重的问题,包括但不限于范围夸大(包含了标本记录或经核实的观察结果所不能代表的大量地理区域);范围地图在地理上发生了偏移,使物种被标示为出现在它们不出现的区域,而出现在它们出现的区域却没有出现(在某些情况下,这些新地图甚至不包括物种的模式产地);范围地图只是忽略了受保护关注的外围种群;以及完全海洋哺乳动物的范围地图(即:"海洋哺乳动物")。e.,不在陆地上活动的哺乳动物)的分布范围图,其中包括大片岛屿和大陆陆地。总体而言,我们对 MoL 平台上新的 "专家 "哺乳动物分布图进行了评估,共涉及 78 个物种(检索时间为 2022 年 3 月 31 日至 2023 年 4 月 1 日),结果表明这些分布图存在严重的系统性问题,而且这些问题在地理学和分类学上都很普遍。因此,我们提醒研究人员在将Marsh等人(2022年)在MoL上绘制的分布图用于任何研究目的(包括哺乳动物的保护、生物地理学和宏观生态学分析)之前,一定要仔细审查和评估这些分布图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Mammalogy
Journal of Mammalogy 生物-动物学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
106
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Papers are published on mammalian behavior, conservation, ecology, genetics, morphology, physiology, and taxonomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信