Listing species names is key to accessing a world of additional information on species, including aspects of natural history and current and potential uses. However, among the merits of catalogs is that they synthesize a wealth of information accumulated throughout the history of botany and exploration of any territory. Many people are skeptical of the scientific value of catalogs, especially scholars of biodiversity that require information that catalogs do not provide directly. Ultimately, it is up to catalog users to judge the reliability of names and additional information presented. Expert opinions help clarify uncertainties, especially when the geographical distribution of species reveals errors of reference in a given regional inventory. Sometimes an inventory follows one of these criteria, while another may prefer an alternative approach. A further problem is the use of different taxonomic criteria specialists do not always coincide in the circumscription of species, genera or even taxonomic categories of higher rank, and reconciling these different treatments is not trivial. The reliability of the existing literature is an issue for any catalog and unreliable primary sources result in biases or difficulties in compiling lists in addition, it is practically impossible to verify all species identifications, and the number of reviews or monographs consulted or available is relatively low. Usually, a basic species list is what is first published for any region, so it always requires a critical evaluation. Sometimes, as in this work, they only list the scientific names collected for the country on other occasions they provide additional information, such as representative specimens, literature for particular taxonomic groups, synonymy, or specific comments aimed to clarify doubts or taxonomic conflicts (see, for example, Dávila et al., 2006 García-Mendoza & Meave, 2011 Guzmán, Arias, & Dávila, 2003 Ibarra-Manríquez, Villaseñor, & Durán, 1995 Villaseñor, Ortiz, Beutelspacher, & Gómez-López, 2013). Therefore, the documented information on Mexico's floristic richness should be regularly updated through the publication of floristic lists or catalogs that synthesize information on the species reported.Ī catalog (floristic list or checklist) represents a more or less critical summary of the information gathered or known about the plant species (or other taxonomic designation) of a region ( Nimis, 1996), and it may vary in content or approach. Moreover, due to the dynamism of taxonomy, published scientific names are constantly changed due to updates and corrections, or added in publication of numerous new species. Unfortunately, the exercise carried out by the Conabio (the Mexican Biodiversity Commission) has been little used, probably because the general public has limited access to such information, and the databases still have little impact on the presentation and management of biological information. Their list was the first publication that documents in detail aspects of Mexican plant biodiversity ( Conabio, 2008). Later, Llorente-Bousquets and Ocegueda (2008), collaborating with many specialists, published the first list of species of vascular plants of Mexico, which included 22,332 species, a figure remarkably similar to that reported by Villaseñor (2003). A decade ago, an extensive literature review led to an estimate of about 22,351 species of vascular plants ( Villaseñor, 2003, 2004). The first estimates of the vascular flora of Mexico, proposed more than 2 decades ago, quoted between 17,000 and 30,000 species (reviewed in Villaseñor, 2003). It is also clear that most genera require additional taxonomic study (revisions or monographs), and large areas of land remain unexplored to date. However, the knowledge of national floristic richness is still unsatisfactory mainly due to the difficulty of synthesizing scattered information in such publications along with the lack of well-curated databases of specimens documenting this richness. Mexico has a long and growing tradition of studying its vascular flora, reflected in the significant increase in recent decades of specimens housed in national scientific collections and abroad, backed by an immense bibliography. There are international agreements that prioritize the quantification of biodiversity of the signatory countries, especially those with poor or insufficient knowledge of biodiversity at the national and/or regional levels, as is the case of Mexico ( Conabio, 2012). With this number, it is possible to quantitatively evaluate diversity and compare it among areas. The concept of biodiversity, applied to floristic richness, considers the number of taxa (categories of the taxonomic hierarchy) present in any geographical or administrative unit, such as county, state or country.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |