Page:Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species.pdf/4

PLOS BIOLOGY their taxonomic approach and each having their own adherents, causing confusion and inefficiencies among list users and diverting resources away from users' core purposes.

Consolidation requires decisions as to which taxa to accept and which to reject. In many areas of science beyond taxonomy, organisations have made decisions, even controversial ones, on issues that transcend national borders. To do so, they have invoked governance principles to adjudicate decisions even in the face of continued debate. As an example, the decision in 2006 by the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union that Pluto was not a full planet proved highly controversial and severely tested the governance of the organisation. Similarly, the process of deciding whether to recognise the 'Anthropocene' as a new geological era is being debated by the International Union of Geological Sciences. Beyond science, many international agreements often have strong dispute resolution mechanisms, especially when there are power discrepancies between parties. However, when there are differences in opinion about species validity, there are no formal rules for dispute resolution or frameworks within which the differences can be managed. Whilst progress towards reconciliation between different taxonomic lists is currently underway through the CoL Plus endeavour and the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge, opposing views are deeply entrenched in some groups, and reconciling them will be no trivial task.

Nevertheless, much can be learnt from the communities of practice that already exist and regularly make difficult taxonomic decisions to create aggregated lists at a regional level or for major taxonomic groups. To achieve global acceptance, a unified global list of species will only be adopted if the full range of stakeholders in lists find it advantageous to use. Amongst these stakeholders will be not only list users such as naturalists, ecologists, the commercial sector, and government agencies but also the community of taxonomists. Fully engaging with this community will be essential if an authoritative, widely adopted unified global list of accepted species covering all forms of life is to be created.

Here, we set out a series of principles (Box 1) that we believe will support existing efforts to create a global list with the legitimacy and institutional authority needed to facilitate adoption


 * 1) The species list must be based on science and free from nontaxonomic considerations and interference.
 * 2) Governance of the species list must aim for community support and use.
 * 3) All decisions about list composition must be transparent.
 * 4) The governance of validated lists of species is separate from the governance of the naming of species.
 * 5) Governance of lists of accepted species must not strain academic freedom.
 * 6) The set of criteria considered sufficient to recognise species boundaries may appropriately vary between different taxonomic groups but should be consistent when possible.
 * 7) A global list must balance conflicting needs for currency and stability by having archived versions.
 * 8) Contributors need appropriate recognition.