Speaker
Description
Taxonomy provides the foundation upon which most biological research is built, yet one of its most persistent obstacles lies in the lack of conceptual transparency regarding what, precisely, is meant by “species”. Although recent decades have seen advances in integrative approaches and molecular tools, many studies still fail to explicitly state the species concept guiding their analyses. This omission undermines the reproducibility, comparability, and transparency of taxonomic decisions—issues central to the open science movement. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of taxonomic and systematic literature on terrestrial vertebrates published since 2008 to evaluate how explicitly species concepts are adopted and reported. Using an AI-assisted workflow that combined automated text extraction and bibliometric analysis, we screened more than 700 peer-reviewed articles for explicit conceptual declarations. Preliminary results confirm our initial expectation: most studies do not explicitly declare which species concept they adopt, often relying instead on terms such as “integrative approach” or “cryptic species” without clarifying their conceptual basis. This pattern highlights a persistent disconnect between theoretical definitions and empirical practice in modern systematics. We argue that making species concepts explicit is not merely a philosophical concern but a practical requirement for open, transparent, and reproducible taxonomy, aligning the field with the broader principles of open science.
