Paper detail

Taxonomic Provenance: Two Influential Primate Classifications Logically Aligned

Classification standards such as the Mammal Species of the World (MSW) aim to unify name usages at the global scale, but may nevertheless experience significant levels of taxonomic change from one edition to the next. This circumstance challenges the biodiversity and phylogenetic data communities to develop more granular identifiers to track taxonomic congruence and incongruence in ways that both humans and machines can process, i.e., to logically represent taxonomic provenance across multiple classification hierarchies. Here we show that reasoning over taxonomic provenance is feasible for two classifications of primates corresponding to the second and third MSW editions. Our approach entails three main components: (1) individuation of name usages as taxonomic concepts, (2) articulation of concepts via human-asserted Region Connection Calculus (RCC-5) relationships, and (3) the use of an Answer Set Programming toolkit to infer and visualize logically consistent alignments of these taxonomic input constraints. Our use case entails the Primates sec. Groves (1993; MSW2 - 317 taxonomic concepts; 233 at the species level) and Primates sec. Groves (2005; MSW3 - 483 taxonomic concepts; 376 at the species level). Using 402 concept-to-concept input articulations, the reasoning process yields a single, consistent alignment, and infers 153,111 Maximally Informative Relations that constitute a comprehensive provenance resolution map for every concept pair in the Primates sec. MSW2/MSW3. The entire alignment and various partitions facilitate quantitative analyses of name/meaning dissociation, revealing that approximately one in three paired name usages across treatments is not reliable - in the sense of the same name identifying congruent taxonomic meanings. We conclude with an optimistic outlook for logic-based provenance tools in next-generation biodiversity and phylogeny data platforms.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.