Taxonomic surrogacy in biodiversity assessments, and the meaning of Linnaean ranks

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

How far can we go in simplifying biomonitoring assessments? An integrated analysis of taxonomic surrogacy, taxonomic sufficiency and numerical resolution in a megadiverse region (2012, methodology): “Besides the analysis of community congruence, a different set of studies has focused on how well biodiversity patterns, obtained with species-level data, can be reproduced by data on higher taxa, in order to improve the cost-effectiveness of monitoring programs and community analyses in general (e.g”
Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science (2006, background): “(4) Many studies of biodiversity patterns and of the impacts of humans on ecosystems lack taxonomic precision and rigor and rely on misguided use of taxonomic surrogacy (i.e., there is a lack of reliable species identification) (Bertrand et al. 2006).”
The Generification of the Fossil Record (2014, background): “…have been circumscribed for purely mnemonic or bookkeeping reasons and have been ‘‘kept small enough to be memorized but large enough to permit generalizations’’ (Bertrand et al. 2006: p. 152; see also Mayr 1942: p. 283); and (2) taxonomic decisions have been made to promote the stability of names.”