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

AimComprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW).LocationGlobal.TaxonAll extant mammal species.MethodsRange maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species).ResultsRange maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use.Main conclusionExpert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control

Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation

Peer reviewe

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016

Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil: setting the baseline knowledge on the animal diversity in Brazil

The limited temporal completeness and taxonomic accuracy of species lists, made available in a traditional manner in scientific publications, has always represented a problem. These lists are invariably limited to a few taxonomic groups and do not represent up-to-date knowledge of all species and classifications. In this context, the Brazilian megadiverse fauna is no exception, and the Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil (CTFB) (http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/), made public in 2015, represents a database on biodiversity anchored on a list of valid and expertly recognized scientific names of animals in Brazil. The CTFB is updated in near real time by a team of more than 800 specialists. By January 1, 2024, the CTFB compiled 133,691 nominal species, with 125,138 that were considered valid. Most of the valid species were arthropods (82.3%, with more than 102,000 species) and chordates (7.69%, with over 11,000 species). These taxa were followed by a cluster composed of Mollusca (3,567 species), Platyhelminthes (2,292 species), Annelida (1,833 species), and Nematoda (1,447 species). All remaining groups had less than 1,000 species reported in Brazil, with Cnidaria (831 species), Porifera (628 species), Rotifera (606 species), and Bryozoa (520 species) representing those with more than 500 species. Analysis of the CTFB database can facilitate and direct efforts towards the discovery of new species in Brazil, but it is also fundamental in providing the best available list of valid nominal species to users, including those in science, health, conservation efforts, and any initiative involving animals. The importance of the CTFB is evidenced by the elevated number of citations in the scientific literature in diverse areas of biology, law, anthropology, education, forensic science, and veterinary science, among others

Mus tomentosus Lichtenstein 1830

<i>Mus tomentosus</i> Lichtenstein, 1830 (ZMB_MAM 1699) <p> Lichtenstein (1830), when describing <i>Mus tomentosus</i> (currently <i>Kunsia tomensotus</i>), affirmed that the type specimen (ZMB _MAM 1699, skin, skull) came from forested areas along the Rio Uruguay. The catalog entry and the specimen label read “ Uruguay ” as the locality (Fig. 5). Hershkovitz (1966:120) further restricted the type locality by stating: “There is no good reason for believing that the type of <i>Mus tomentosus</i> was collected in any place other than the one given by Lichtenstein and I hereby restrict it to the Rio Uruguay in southeastern Brazil ”.</p> <p> It is plausible to assume that <i>Kunsia tomentosus</i> distribution is associated with the open and transitional woodland formations of South America (Bezerra <i>et al.</i> 2007). Therefore, the restriction made by Hershkovitz (1966), to a region covered in the 19th century by seasonal and humid forests (Fig. 1), is not likely to be the correct collecting type locality. Bezerra <i>et al.</i> (2007) and Terán <i>et al.</i> (2008) defined the distribution of <i>K. tomentosus</i> as the Cerrado of central and west–central Brazil; eastern, northeastern, and northwestern Bolivia; and southeastern Brazil, in the state of Minas Gerais. From these areas, Sellow collected in the open Cerrado of the state of Minas Gerais. Bezerra <i>et al.</i> (2007), Pardiñas <i>et al.</i> (2008) and Bezerra (2015) also acknowledge that the type locality, as currently understood, lies more than 1000 km from the nearest suitable habitat. Pardiñas <i>et al.</i> (2008) stated that the type locality may be incorrect and that the type specimen probably came from southeastern Brazil.</p> <p> Recent paleontological studies, however, have found osteological remains of <i>K. tomentosus</i> in Rio Grande do Sul, indicating that the species may have been recently extirpated from the area (Stutz <i>et al.</i> 2015). Due to these findings, we keep the type locality of <i>K. tomentosus</i> as Rio Uruguay, Rio Grande do Sul, and suggest that the species may still be present in Rio Grande do Sul.</p>Published as part of <i>Garbino, Guilherme S. T. & Nogueira, Marcelo R., 2017, On the mammals collected by Friedrich Sellow in Brazil and Uruguay (1814 – 1831), with special reference to the types and their provenance, pp. 172-190 in Zootaxa 4221 (2)</i> on page 179, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/248623">10.5281/zenodo.248623</a&gt

Ozotoceros bezoarticus

<i>Ozotoceros bezoarticus</i> (ZMB_MAM 2057) <p>This specimen, represented by a skull, is identifiable as male due to the presence of antlers (Fig. 8 b). The skull is complete, but the right M1 is missing and the premaxillae are broken (MTR = 67.4 mm; MDL = 72.12 mm; BB = 63.65 mm; NL = 81.6 mm). The writing on the skull reads “ San Paulo Sello.”</p> <p> Typical of open grasslands, this species probably has been extirpated in São Paulo (Jackson 1987; Duarte & Vogliotti 2010). In this state, Natterer collected a male in Itararé (Pelzeln 1883) and Carvalho recoded the species in Águas de Santa Bárbara (Carvalho 1980). The locality is probably correct because the only area in São Paulo that Sellow visited and could have collected a specimen of <i>O. bezoarticus</i>, due to the presence of open grasslands (Borgonovi & Chiarini 1965), is in the vicinity Itararé.</p>Published as part of <i>Garbino, Guilherme S. T. & Nogueira, Marcelo R., 2017, On the mammals collected by Friedrich Sellow in Brazil and Uruguay (1814 – 1831), with special reference to the types and their provenance, pp. 172-190 in Zootaxa 4221 (2)</i> on page 184, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/248623">10.5281/zenodo.248623</a&gt

Chiroderma villosum Peters 1860

<i>Chiroderma villosum</i> Peters, 1860 (ZMB_MAM 408) <p> Peters (1860) described <i>Chiroderma villosum</i> based on two specimens: one female from Brazil (ZMB _MAM 408), and a skeleton of unknown provenance. The former specimen is a skin with the skull inside, but badly preserved; the skin color is faded, the inner pair of facial stripes are barely visible, and the only external measurement we were able to take was the forearm length, estimated in 47.9 mm (right forearm). The distance between upper canines was 6.37 mm. The skin around the lips had been retracted, so the teeth, up to M1 and m1, are visible, allowing us to identify the diagnostic parallel upper inner incisors (Fig. 2 b, d). Since the skeleton could not be located (Carter and Dolan 1978, Turni and Kock 2008; C. Funk pers. comm. 2016), and because Peters described pelage and cranial characters of the specimen, Turni and Kock (2008) designated ZMB _MAM 408 as the lectotype.</p> <p> The label on ZMB _MAM 408 reads “ Sao Paulo Brasilien Sello”, but the catalogue, handwritten by Peters, mentions only Brazil (“Brasilia”), without any information on the collector (Fig. 3). In the original description of this taxon, Peters (1860:754) stated that Sellow supposedly collected the type and reported only Brazil as its source. Since there is not enough evidence to narrow the type locality of this widely distributed taxon, we suggest keeping it as Brazil, as adopted by most authors (<i>e.g.</i>, Carter & Dolan 1978; Simmons 2005; Gardner 2008a). We also conclude, due to conflicting information (<i>i.e.</i>, label vs. catalogue), that there is not enough evidence to affirm that the lectotype was collected by Sellow. Most of the Brazilian mammals deposited in the Museum für Naturkunde during the first decades of the 19th century were collected by Ignaz von Olfers in eastern Brazil, Friedrich Sieber in the state of Pará, Francisco Gomes in Bahia, and Sellow, also in eastern Brazil (Ávila-Pires 1967). Thus, the lectotype could have come from any one of these collectors and the localities they visited.</p>Published as part of <i>Garbino, Guilherme S. T. & Nogueira, Marcelo R., 2017, On the mammals collected by Friedrich Sellow in Brazil and Uruguay (1814 – 1831), with special reference to the types and their provenance, pp. 172-190 in Zootaxa 4221 (2)</i> on pages 176-177, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/248623">10.5281/zenodo.248623</a&gt

Blastocerus dichotomus

<i>Blastocerus dichotomus</i> (ZMB_MAM 2052) <p> The species is represented by an adult male (MTR = 85.11 mm; MDL = 91.41 mm; BB = 76.09 mm); writing on the skull reads “ San Paulo Sello” (Fig. 8 a). This locality is probably incorrect, since the species occurred only in marshy habitats in western São Paulo, along the banks of the Rio Paraná, a region not visited by Sellow (Piovezan <i>et al.</i> 2010). The species also occurred in Brazil and Uruguay, along the banks of the Rio Uruguay (Piovezan <i>et al.</i> 2010), and it is more probable that this specimen came from these countries, near that river.</p>Published as part of <i>Garbino, Guilherme S. T. & Nogueira, Marcelo R., 2017, On the mammals collected by Friedrich Sellow in Brazil and Uruguay (1814 – 1831), with special reference to the types and their provenance, pp. 172-190 in Zootaxa 4221 (2)</i> on page 183, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/248623">10.5281/zenodo.248623</a&gt

Brachyteles arachnoides

<i>Brachyteles arachnoides</i> (ZMB_MAM 206) <p> The specimen of the southern muriqui, <i>Brachyteles arachonoides</i>, is represented by only a flat skin. The material is the only primate collected by Sellow whose label bears a specific locality other than simply the state or country where it was collected. The label reads “Ypanema,” the same locality where Natterer also collected specimens of <i>B. arachnoides</i> (see Pelzeln 1883). In the absence of contrary evidence, we assume that this locality is correct.</p>Published as part of <i>Garbino, Guilherme S. T. & Nogueira, Marcelo R., 2017, On the mammals collected by Friedrich Sellow in Brazil and Uruguay (1814 – 1831), with special reference to the types and their provenance, pp. 172-190 in Zootaxa 4221 (2)</i> on page 182, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/248623">10.5281/zenodo.248623</a&gt