Evaluating the use of taxonomy in the IUCN Red List

Abstract

Taxonomy defines the units that conservationists strive to preserve for future generations. However, the discovery of new species and the taxonomic revision of existing species affect conservation efforts. Despite the importance of taxonomy for a species' conservation, there is currently no overview of how those leading species extinction risk assessments use taxonomy. To fill this gap, we asked the chairs of the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Species Survival Commission Specialist Groups and other IUCN expert groups that coordinate extinction risk assessments about the state of taxonomy within their taxonomic group of interest, their sources of information, and what taxonomy-related challenges they encounter in conducting assessments. Most experts answered immediately and in detail, reflecting the importance of taxonomy. Approaches to taxonomy were diverse. Although most experts ignored debates about species definitions, for some groups, particularly mammals and birds, there were theoretical differences about what constitutes a species. Governance of species lists varied from individual experts making all decisions, to dedicated committees, to collective decisions for all taxonomic resolutions being made by others outside the group. The extent to which current taxonomy represents the views and consensus of the taxonomic community with an interest in that taxonomic group is not known. However, the taxonomies used in IUCN assessments differ from those used by other species conservation initiatives led by multilateral environmental agreements or the Catalogue of Life. Greater alignment is possible and could be beneficial, though it may constrain the flexibility and adaptability in taxonomic decision-making that informs IUCN Red List assessments. We argue that regardless of the extent to which further alignment is sought, there is potential to enhance taxonomic list governance within the IUCN.