Widespread support for a global species list with a formal governance system.

Taxonomic data are a scientific common. Unlike nomenclature, which has strong governance institutions, there are currently no generally accepted governance institutions for the compilation of taxonomic data into an accepted global list. This gap results in challenges for conservation, ecological research, policymaking, international trade, and other areas of scientific and societal importance. Consensus on a global list and its management requires effective governance and standards, including agreed mechanisms for choosing among competing taxonomies and partial lists. However, governance frameworks are currently lacking, and a call for governance in 2017 generated critical responses. Any governance system to which compliance is voluntary requires a high level of legitimacy and credibility among those by and for whom it is created. Legitimacy and credibility, in turn, require adequate and credible consultation. Here, we report on the results of a global survey of taxonomists, scientists from other disciplines, and users of taxonomy designed to assess views and test ideas for a new system of taxonomic list governance. We found a surprisingly high degree of agreement on the need for a global list of accepted species and their names, and consistent views on what such a list should provide to users and how it should be governed. The survey suggests that consensus on a mechanism to create, manage, and govern a single widely accepted list of all the world's species is achievable. This finding was unexpected given past controversies about the merits of list governance.

A higher level classification of all living organisms.

We present a consensus classification of life to embrace the more than 1.6 million species already provided by more than 3,000 taxonomists' expert opinions in a unified and coherent, hierarchically ranked system known as the Catalogue of Life (CoL). The intent of this collaborative effort is to provide a hierarchical classification serving not only the needs of the CoL's database providers but also the diverse public-domain user community, most of whom are familiar with the Linnaean conceptual system of ordering taxon relationships. This classification is neither phylogenetic nor evolutionary but instead represents a consensus view that accommodates taxonomic choices and practical compromises among diverse expert opinions, public usages, and conflicting evidence about the boundaries between taxa and the ranks of major taxa, including kingdoms. Certain key issues, some not fully resolved, are addressed in particular. Beyond its immediate use as a management tool for the CoL and ITIS (Integrated Taxonomic Information System), it is immediately valuable as a reference for taxonomic and biodiversity research, as a tool for societal communication, and as a classificatory "backbone" for biodiversity databases, museum collections, libraries, and textbooks. Such a modern comprehensive hierarchy has not previously existed at this level of specificity.

A phylogeny of the fish family Sparidae (porgies) inferred from mitochondrial sequence data.

The porgies (Sparidae) comprise a diverse group of neritic fishes with a broad geographic distribution. We used mitochondrial DNA sequences from partial 16S ribosomal RNA and cytochrome b genes to reconstruct the phylogenetic history of these fishes. Sequences from 38 sparid species, 10 species in outgroups closely related to sparids, seven basal percoid species, and a non-perciform outgroup species were analyzed with parsimony and maximum likelihood. The Sparidae were monophyletic with the inclusion of Spicara, which is currently placed in the Centracanthidae. The genera Spicara, Pagrus, and Pagellus, were not monophyletic indicating a need for revision. Two main sparid lineages were recovered in all analyses, but the previously proposed six sparid subfamilies (Boopsinae, Denticinae, Diplodinae, Pagellinae, Pagrinae, and Sparinae) were not monophyletic. This suggests that dentition and feeding modes, upon which these subfamilies are based, were independently derived multiple times within sparid fishes. There was no evidence from the 16S or combined analyses for a monophyletic Sparoidea.