Species descriptions and digital environments: alternatives for accessibility of morphological data

REVISTA

BRASILEIRA

DE

Entomologia

w w w . r b e n t o m o l o g i a . c o m

Review

Species

descriptions

and

digital

environments:

alternatives

for

accessibility

of

morphological

data

Thiago

Sanches

Ranzani

da

Silva

UniversidadeFederaldoParaná,DepartamentodeZoologia,Curitiba,PR,Brazil

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received1March2017 Accepted30June2017 Availableonline14July2017 AssociateEditor:LiviaPinheiro Keywords: Dataaccessibility Interoperability Annotations Web-basedtaxonomy

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Taxonomists’effortsthroughouthistoryprovidesignificantamountofdatathatgivesupportfor estab-lishingthespecificidentityofseveralgroupsofbiologicalsystems.Inadditiontoidentifyingspecies, taxonomicresearchoffersawiderangeofbiologicalinformationthatcanbeusedinotherdisciplines,e.g. evolution,ecology,integratedpestmanagement.However,mostofthisinformationremains unappreci-atedduetocertainaspects:(1)theadventofanalyticaltoolshaveledtoashiftininterestandinvestment inresearches,focusingmainlyinmolecularstudies;(2)theerroneousconceptthattheextensivedata offeredbytaxonomicstudiescanbereplacedbyotherdatasets,separatingitfromitshypothesis-driven andinvestigativenature;(3)thefinalproductsfoundintaxonomicworksarecommonlyrestrictedto asmallgroupofresearchers,duetoitslowaccessibilityandspecificlanguage.Consideringthislast aspect,web-basedtoolscanbevaluabletosimplifythedisseminationofthetaxonomicproduct. Seman-ticannotationprovideaconditioninwhichspeciesdescriptionscanbereadilyavailableandbefarmore extensive,enablingrapidexchangeofcountlessdatarelatedtobiologicalsystems.

©2017SociedadeBrasileiradeEntomologia.PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.Thisisanopen accessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

Taxonomyisafundamental sciencethatprovidessupportto

allmajorfieldsinbiology.Taxonomistsproducemuchofthebasic

knowledgeaboutspecies,providingcrucialinformationtoother

disciplinesthatdealwithanysortsofbiologicalsystems.However

mosttaxonomicdataremainsunappreciatedduetothefragmented

conditionandunevenaccessibilityofbasicinformationon

biodi-versity.AccordingtoMilleretal.(2012),taxonomyallowsspecies

recognitionthroughtextualdescriptionsandimagesofspecimens,

andmapstheirdistributionbasedonlocalityrecords,meaningthat

mostofthevitalknowledgeusedtopreserveaparticularspecies

resultsfromtaxonomicworks.Withacceleratedratesofextinction

inmanyrecentgroups,summedtoalossofhabitatinmanyregions

oftheworldandtheinexorableeffectsofclimatechange,

taxon-omyhasneverbeenmoreimportant(Isaacetal.,2004;Milleretal.,

2012;Padialetal.,2010).

Biodiversityisoneoftherichestinformationproviderfieldsfor

humanknowledge(Petersonetal.,2010).However,onlyrecent

advancesincybertaxonomic infrastructure(i.e.thecombination

of digital and information technologies and informatics with

E-mail:sanchesranzani@ufpr.br

taxonomy)madepossiblethecreationoftoolsthatunite

biodiver-sityinformationinawaythattheyareavailabletoawidevariety

of users, includingecologists, wildlifeand land managers,

like-wisemakingtheexistinginformationpromptlyaccessibletothe

globaltaxonomiccommunity(Godfray,2002;Milleretal.,2012).

Althoughthereareplentyofwebsitesdevotedtospecifictaxaand

projects,whichareusefultothoseinterestedinquestionsinside

thatdomain,thetruepotentialofonlinetoolsliesinmechanisms

thatcombinedatafromprimarysourcesinawaythatuserscan

easilyfilterandrecombine,makingtheiruseflexibletowardany

purpose(Petersonetal.,2010;ThessenandPatterson,2011).

Taxonomic works are,generally, a summary ofa set of

ele-ments,includingdescriptionsintextualform,scientificnamesand

nomenclatureacts,literaturereferences,images,recordsofspecies’

occurrencesand,recently,DNAsequences(Milleretal.,2012).The

roleofataxonomististoestablishconnectionsbetweenspecimens

andnomenclature,expressinterpretationsandhypothesisthrough

textualelementsanddocumentobservationsusingimages. Ina

traditionaltaxonomicpublication,allofthoseelementsare

com-binedinasingledocument.However,iftheyweretobereleased

simultaneouslyandmaintainedasdatasetslinkedtothe

origi-nalpublicationinanexternalenvironment,therewouldbedirect

effectsonthetaxonomiccommunity,aswellonotherresearcher

groups(Deansetal.,2012;Godfray,2002;Milleretal.,2012;Padial

etal.,2010).Inordertolinkdatafromvariousfieldsofknowledge,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbe.2017.06.005

0085-5626/©2017SociedadeBrasileiradeEntomologia.PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

disseminatingphenotypicinformationinanopenenvironment,the

useoftoolsthatenhanceinteroperabilityarevital.Inthiscontext,

semanticannotationsarethemainchoicetofacilitate

dissemina-tionandretrievingofphenotypicdatainadigitalenvironment.

Semanticannotationis,basically,theprocessofattaching

addi-tionalinformationtoaconcept,inawaythatitiseasilyreadand

recoveredbymachines.Itlinksmultipleconceptsacrossdifferent

domains,insideadigitalplatform.Hence,itenablestherecovering

ofmultipleknowledge,allowingtheinclusionofparticular

con-ceptsintobroaderperspectives.Itcanbeusedinontology-based

information retrieval queries for efficient data mining,

spread-ingthecurrent understandingofa specific concepttomultiple

domains.Therefore,itsusemayprovidewaystoextendtheaccess

tounappreciateddata,suchasthoseavailableintaxonomicworks.

Severalstudiesappliedsemanticannotationtoextendthe

applica-tionofphenotypicinformationtootherdomainsofknowledge(e.g.

´Cwiek-Kupczy ´nskaetal.,2016;Hoehndorfetal.,2016;

Serrano-Solanoetal.,2017),suggestingthatthisprocessgreatlyenhances

interoperabilityamongsystemsthatsupportthistypeofdata.

Taking the aforementioned considerations into account, the

intentionofthepresentworkistodiscusstheimportanceofthe

taxonomicinvestigation,focusing onthemeansfor retrievalof

thetaxonomicproduct,especiallyintheroleplayedbysemantic

annotationinspeciesdescriptions.Discussionsarebasedina

non-systematicliteraturereview.Initially,Idiscusstheimportanceof

thetaxonomicworkandtheeffectivenessofthetaxonomist

work-flowto producedescriptions ofbiological systems.After that,I

addressthequestionoftheaccessibilityoftaxonomicdata,

focus-ingonthemannerinwhichthistypeofinformationispresented,

especially when data miningis concerned. In this sense, I

dis-cusstheconstructionofanatomicalconceptsandsomeconceptual

disagreementsconcerningtheapplicationof homology

assump-tionsintheelaborationofanatomicontologies.Followingthis,I

addressthesubjectonhowdigitalenvironmentscanbevaluable

tothedisseminationoftaxonomicproducts,emphasizingtherole

ofsemanticannotationintheextensionofthiskindofinformation.

Accessibilitytothetaxonomicinformation

Taxonomistsprovidemuchofthebasicknowledgeabout

bio-logicalsystems,andarethusconsideredasinformationprovidersto

thelifesciences(Wilson,2002;Gewin,2002).Theyprovide

essen-tialinformationtoinnumerousstudies,makingitpossibletograsp

therealdimensionofbiodiversity,aswellasthecausesand

conse-quencesoftheirdiversification.Itissuchanintegrativeevidence

thatisarequisitetootherdisciplinesinbiology,suchas

conserva-tion(Mooers,2007;Forestetal.,2007),biomimetics(Badarnahand

Fernández,2015;Rajabietal.,2015),andevolutionofbodyplans

(evo-devo) (Mallarino and Abzhanov, 2012), being alsodirectly

relatedapplicabletofieldssuchascommerce,biosecurity,

envi-ronmentalissues, fishery, medicine,mining prospection,public

health,wildlifemanagement,etc.(Kapoor,1998).Inparticular,

eco-morphologicalapproaches benefitfrom taxonomic/morphologic

products,whichprovidesusefulinformationforinvestigatingthe

contributionof sizeand specificidentity asrelated tofunction

(revisioninSibbingandNagelkerke,2000).Therelationbetween

ecologyandmorphologyhasbeenclearlydemonstratedinvarious

animaltaxa(RicklefsandTravis,1980;MilesandRicklefs,1984;

Milesetal.,1987;DouglasandMatthews,1992;SilvaandBrandão,

2010).Researchersassumethatspeciesaremoresimilar

function-allyincaseswhentheyaremorphologicallymoresimilar(Chalcraft

andResetarits,2003).

Taxonomistsexaminespecimens,classifyingthemintaxonomic

concepts(i.e.hypothesisofspecies;Berendsohn,1995,Berendsohn

andGeoffroy,2007andKennedyetal.,2006),organizetheir

asso-ciated information (e.g. where and when they were collected

and bywhom) and describe theirphysical appearancethrough

textannotations(Deansetal.,2012).Theseannotationscompiled

bytaxonomistsaretranscribedin“descriptions”,including

diag-noses,whichservetoformalizespeciesthatcanberecoveredby

researchersinthefuture(Deansetal.,2012;Milleretal.,2012).

Taxonomicdescriptionsareavaluablesourceofknowledge

con-cerningphenotypicdiversityinthelivingworld.Theseevidences,

however, are generally restricted to taxonomic works, written

byandconsumedalmostexclusivelybytaxonomists.Therefore,

species’descriptionsarenoteasilyobtainedandotherscientists

seldomreusethephenotypicdataresultantfromit(Deansetal.,

2012).Evenwhenphenotypicdataisobtainedduringthe

elabora-tionofnon-taxonomicstudies,itisrarelyincludedinthefinished

studyand,thus,notmadepubliclyavailable(Zamir,2013)oritis

presentedinanextremelyheterogeneousandunorderedmanner,

makingitsdiscoveryproblematic andinterpretationimpractical

(Deansetal.,2015).

Althoughelectronicavailability of taxonomictreatments are

rapidlygrowing,reflectedinthechangeofpublicationrequisites

(ICZN, 2012) that fosterdigitalization endeavors(Balhoffet al.,

2013),phenotypicdescriptionsarestillmadeinnaturallanguage

normallyapplyingspecializedanatomicalterminology.Thiskindof

descriptionposesachallengewhenresearcherstrytodatamineit

(however,cf.Cui(2012)andThessenetal.(2012)formechanisms

toconvertnaturallanguagedescriptionsinsemanticannotations),

probablyduetotheexcessiveamountofhomonymiesand

syn-onymies that exist between anatomical concepts(Yoder et al.,

2010).

Descriptionsareconstructedbased onanalogiesandare

sel-dom reused.Accordingto Deans et al.(2012), descriptions are

repeatedwhenataxonisrevised,amostlyredundantprocess

lead-ingtotheaccretionofvarioustextannotationsofphenotypesfor

asmallnumberoftaxa,inwhichmostofitturnsouttobeunused

information. Owing to this inefficiency, many researchers

con-siderdescriptionsasanuisance(cf.Evenhuis,2007)and,insome

cases,havearguedinfavorofthedelimitationofataxon

exclu-sivelywithmoleculardata(Hebertetal.,2003;Cooketal.,2010).

Deansetal.(2012)mentionsthatthelimitedutilityof

descrip-tionsmaypartiallyexplain recurrentstagnationof fundingand

trainingoftaxonomists(cf.AgnarssonandKuntner,2007;Carvalho

etal.,2007)andthesubsequentlackofmoralethatpervadesthis

fundamentalscience.

Therearethreecentralissues,raisedbyDeansetal.(2012),that

mayberesponsibleforencumberingtheelaborationofphenotypic

semanticannotations:(i)theneedforaphysicalprintedversion

tovalidateaformaldescription(althoughthisismostlychanged;

seeCressey,2011;RinaldoandNorton,2009);(ii)descriptionsare

normallycomposedinnon-uniformnaturallanguagethatare

inef-ficientfor data-mining; and(iii) descriptions donot commonly

refertologicaldefinitionsofconcepts(i.e.homonymy,polysemy

andsynonymyareprevalent)(Yoderetal.,2010).Thus,thefinal

productoftaxonomicworkremainslargelyunexploitedandbarely

usedbyinvestigatorsinotherdisciplines.

However,accordingtoPattersonetal.(2010),taxonomy

pos-sesses two singular features that makes its reuse possible in

biodiversityinformatics.Thefirstistheuniversaluseofthesystem

ofscientificnamesthatenablestreatingnamesasmetadata,which

canbeusedtoindexinformationrelatedtobiodiversity.The

sec-ondattributereferstoclassificationschemes.Theytransformlists

ofnamesintoorganizationalstructures(i.e.ontologies)responsible

forgroupingdata,allowingtheconstructionofgeneralized

decla-rationsandtheinferencesoftaxapropertiesbyusers,permitting

extensiveorfocusedsearchesandfacilitatingbrowsingfor

infor-mation(Pattersonetal.,2010).Thevalueofnamesasmetadataand

classificationasontologiesleadtotheideathatnames-based

2008).Inthissense,taxonomistsbenefitfromweb-related

initia-tivesandtechnologytoimprovethetaxonomicworkflow(Carvalho

etal., 2007).Wheeler(2007)mentions thatthecombination of

digitalandinformationtechnologiesandinformaticswith

taxon-omyisanefficientmethodtoenhancethequalityandamountof

taxonomicproducts.

AccordingtoWillandRubinoff’s(2004)philosophical

perspec-tive regarding human discovery and knowledge of the natural

world,toperceivetheworldthrougharestrictedsetof

observ-ablephenomenawouldresultinanintellectuallysterilelandscape.

Patternsofhumanperceptionderivefromtheunderstandingofall

kindsofdata,particularlyfromrichtypesasmorphology.A

holis-ticperceptionoforganismsincorporatingphylogenies,functional

morphology, behavior, ecology, etc., will help us make

better-informedconservationdecisions.

StillaccordingtoWillandRubinoff(2004),itisexpectedthat

researchersinthisfieldproposetaxonomichypothesisanddevelop

identificationtoolsessentialfortherestofbiologicalsciences.

Tax-onomicconceptsare,orshouldbe,constructeduponamultitudeof

datafrequentlyobtainedbynon-systematistsduringtheir

investi-gations.Reciprocityintheaccessibilityofdatawouldenhancethe

valueoftheobtainedfinalproduct.

Althoughthe relationbetweenmorphology and other

disci-plinesisevident,withtheobviouscrucialroleoftaxonomyinthe

productionofmorphologicaldata,thistypeofinformationis

nor-mallyobtainedthroughindependentmeansofacquisition,i.e.they

arenoteasilyacquiredthroughadatabase,whichappliesformal

methods of presenting and retrievalof morphological

informa-tion.Theyaretypicallyacquiredduringtheinvestigationprocess

andarepresentedinamore-or-lessformalizedmanner,making

itsreuse difficult,leadingtoa permanent independent

acquisi-tionofmorphologicaldataeachtimeatraitwouldbeaddressedin

broaderperspectives.Acquisitionofinformationthrough

indepen-dentmeansusuallyrelatestodistinctionofmethodsforobtaining,

analyzingandpresentingbasicdata.

Inthisperspective,presentingmorphologicalinformationusing

semanticannotationtools would providethemeansto acquire

datainaformalized,analyticway,promotingextensivereuseof

morphologicalproducts.

Annotations,ontologiesandbiologicalinformation

Annotationsplayanimportantroleintheuseanddissemination

ofinformation.Hence,itsapplicationisextremelyvast,beinguseful

infieldsaslinguistics,legalresearch,imaging,software

engineer-ingandcomputationalbiology.Theyrepresentcommentariesor

explanationsattachedtoadocument,suchastexts,imagesorany

othertypeofdata.Inanontologicalcontext,annotationsidentify

real-worldentitiesalongsidepropertiesandrelationsthat

charac-terizetheentities’attributesandroleintheirtextualcontext,with

respecttoareferenceontology(Sanfilippoetal.,2006).Withina

biologicalframework,morespecificallyintaxonomy,these

com-mentariesorexplanationscanrepresentobservationsofasetofall

phenotypeexpressedbyaspecimenortaxon(Deansetal.,2012).

Ontologies are formal representations of conceptsand their

logical relationsinside a domain,supporting representationsof

knowledgewithexplicitsemantics(Balhoffetal.,2013).Innatural

languageprocessingandinformationretrieval,explicitsemantics

arevectorialrepresentationsoftextsthatusesstructuredsetsof

documentstostoreinformation that willbe usedbycomputer

systems.

Theseontologiesareimportantbecausetheyareformal

specifi-cationsofcertainaspectsofreality,andbothhumanandcomputers

canuseit.Theypromoteinteroperability,whichmeans

communi-cationbetweendatabases,likecross-searches(Mabeeetal.,2007a).

Accordingto Washingtonet al. (2009)and Walls et al.(2012),

databases can be combined, coherently computed and shared

onlybyreferencingstandardized concepts.Biologicalontologies

havebecomestandardtoolstoorganizeandaccessgenomicand

phenomic data from model species (Mungall et al., 2010).The

applicationofthesetoolstorepresentanddisseminate

compara-bledescriptivedataprovidesopportunitiestoperformconnections

between phenotypic and genomic information (Mabee et al.,

2007a).

Deansetal.(2012),recently,proposedthattheapplicationof

annotations intaxonomicdescriptions, throughsemantic

phen-otypes, would allow efficient searches, wider integration, and

automated reasoning techniques to databy a broaderarray of

researchers. Thiswould augment thevalue of taxonomic work

andpromote itsreuse,whereasthediscrete natureofsemantic

phenotypesmakesthempronetoextensiveuse.Thismeansthat

individualobservationscouldbemadeoutsidetaxonomic

collec-tionsandaddedtoothersystems,promotingtheextensionofthis

discipline.

AccordingtoDahduletal.(2010),taxonomistsusethe

expres-sivityandrichness ofnaturallanguagetopreciselydescribethe

morphologicalvariationobservedamongspecies.Theconstruction

ofthesedescriptionsismoreorlessformalized,likecharactersand

characterstatesinthesystematiclanguage(Sereno,2007).By

usu-allydescribingphenotypesbindingeachcharactertoaspecificstate

(implyinghomology hypothesis toeachcharacter), taxonomists

canhavedifficultiestoreconciletherelationofthehomologiesto

theconcepthierarchyrepresentedbyanontology(Deansetal.,

2012).Thatis,thehierarchicalarrangementneededtostructure

anontologydifferssignificantlyfromthehierarchicalarrangement

neededtoassesshomologyofcharactersinaphylogeneticcontext.

Therearesomewhatopposingviewsonhowhomology

hypoth-esis can impend or not the construction of ontologies and, by

extension,compromisetheannotationofconcepts.Accordingto

Deans et al. (2012),existent anatomic ontologies are primarily

developedusingdefinitionsofstructuralconcepts,astrategythat

works well in a case in which these ontologiesare elaborated

basedinonespecies.However,thesameauthorsobservethatthe

enhancementoftheuseofanatomicontologiesofmultiplespecies

andofhighhierarchicallevelsforcetaxonomiststodealwith

evolu-tionaryquestionsthatarenormallyunfittingduringtheprocessof

developingontologies.AccordingtoMungalletal.(2012),although

theinferenceofhomologyisimportantfromtheperspectiveof

con-nectinggeneexpressionandphenotypeacrossspecies,statements

ofhomologycanbecontroversial,subjecttochangeandeven

con-tradictory,providingalimitedsetofpotentiallyinterestingresults.

Incontrast,thesameauthorsmentionthat,asoneofmanyaxes

ofclassification,homologycanbeinformativewhengrouping

con-cepts,consideringitisusedinanintegrativeframework.

Evolutionarycomparisonsoperateinhigherlevelsin

biologi-calsystems,namelyinthelevelofcontinuityandmodificationof

thephenotypethroughoutthetreeoflife(Mabeeetal.,2007a).

Thestudyofphenotypicsimilarityduetothecontinuityof

inher-itedinformation(i.e.homology)(VanValen,1982;Roth,1984)is

importanttobiologistsinalllevelsandcentraltocomparative

biol-ogy(Bockand Cardew,1999).Thisway,ultimately,conceptions

betweentermsinsideandbetweenanatomicontologiesshouldbe

definedbydeclarationsofrelationofhomology.However,the

hier-archicalarrangementofanatomicclassesgenerallydonotimply

homologies(Deansetal.,2012).Developingamechanismtodefine

andusethisrelationisrequiredfortargetingqueriesof

evolution-arybiologists.Homologyrelationscanbeexpressedasamapping

betweenontologiesinadatabase,allowinggreaterflexibilitythan

codifyingrelationsofhomologyinsideananatomicontology.This

meansthathomologyhypothesiscouldbeexplicitlyincorporated

inontologiesthroughothermechanisms(non-hierarchical),such

thatunifyanatomic conceptsto taxain a phylogenetic context

(Deansetal.,2012).Homology attributionsneedtobebasedin

theevidenceofrelation(e.g.position,developingorcomposition),

andcouldberecoveredfromtheliteratureorothersources(Mabee

etal.,2007a).

Theextended maintenance of anatomic terminologies,

how-ever,donot needtheobligate linkbetweenanatomicconcepts

andhomologyhypothesis(seeEdgecombe(2008)foradiscussion

ontheuseoftheterm“basipterigoidprocess”).AccordingtoVogt

etal.(2010),homologyhypothesistranscendtheobservedby

pro-vidinga possibleexplanationforthelikelinessof traitsand for

theexistenceofkindsoftraitsthroughstatementsofacommon

evolutionary origin. This means that correspondence of

struc-turesinonetraittoanotheronlyrepresentsanecessary,butnot

sufficient,conditionforhomology. Hence,structuralsimilarities

canbeexpressibleandcommunicableindependentofexplanatory

hypothesessuchashomology.

Extreme cases of morphological differences are found in

anatomicsystemsunderstrongselectionand/orpossessgreatvalue

assourcesofspecificdiagnosticcharacters.Disparateterminologies

resultinavastfieldofinconsistentdeclarations(Yoderetal.,2010).

Thiscircumstanceinhibitsfutureeffortstoexplorebiological

pro-cesses,including:(1)comparisonofpatternsofgenicexpression

(Mabeeetal.,2007a);(2)comparativemorphologyand

phyloge-netics,whichisincreasinglyimportantwhenyoutrytoincorporate

thevastamountof information fromthefossilrecordand rare

taxafromwhichitisnotpossibletoextractDNA;(3)phenotypic

variabilityinanenvironmentalcontext;(4)descriptivetaxonomy

cannotbeefficientlyconsulted;(5)computerizedreasoning,aswell

aslogical reasoning,requires a well-definedsemantic structure

(Yoderetal.,2010).

Aphenotypecanbedefinedasaresultofagivengenotypein

agivenenvironmentandcanbedescribedandannotatedto

facili-tatecomparisons(Washingtonetal.,2009).Currently,mostofthe

morphologicalinformationispresentedinnaturallanguage,

fol-lowingamoreorlessformalizedapproach,lackingastructuredand

orderedmethodthatcanbesemanticallyannotated.Insystematic

characters,structuresandtheirconditionscanbefoundinthe

char-acterdescription,inthedescriptionofthestateofthecharacter,or

inboth.Atthesametime,morphologicaldescriptionsofvariation

amongspeciesintheliteratureconformtogeneralsemantic

for-malisms(Washingtonetal.,2009).Thismeansthatmorphological

informationispresentedinaninordinatemannerandhenceis

par-tiallytraceable.Tocircumventthisissue,descriptionsofindividual

phenotypiccharacterscouldberecordedusingformal

representa-tions,wheretheyarepresentedasasetofstructuresfollowedby

theircorrespondingconditions(e.g.shape,size,number)(Mabee

etal.,2007a,b).Descriptionsfollowingstrictmethodsof

formal-ismareessentialforsemanticannotation,which,inturn,enables

applicationofdistinctaxesofclassificationwhenstructuring

phe-notypicconcepts.Thisway,ifphenotypicdescriptionswerebased

inanorganizedsharedvocabularytheywouldbestructuredina

waythatalgorithmscouldbewrittentocomparephenotypesusing

analytictools(Washingtonetal.,2009).

Thedescriptionofthebiologicaldiversityapplyingformalized

methodsofsemanticannotation,alongwithcomputationaltools

consistentwithtaxonomicpractice,provideauniqueopportunity

tostandardizeandconsultphenotypicdatainamorerigorousand

enlighteningway.

Conclusions

The importance of the taxonomic knowledge is unmatched

for distinct fieldsthat are concerned withthe studyand

com-prehensionofbiologicalsystems.Identification,description,and

assemblingknowledgeconnectedtospecies,aspartofthe

taxo-nomicproduct,makeitpossibleforresearcherstorecognizeand

establishlimitsamongtheseunits.Thus,theydevelop

hypothe-sesandobtainavailabledatafromanextensiverangeofsources,

beitinliterature,collectionsorsamplingevents,presenting,by

itself,aviablescientificeffort.However,muchofthisinformation

canbedifficulttofindormaybedispersedandfragmented,making

dataproducedintaxonomicworksdifficulttoaccessbyresearchers

fromotherdisciplines,henceimpossibletoreuseinotherscientific

communities.

Theapplicationofsemanticannotationfordescribing

biologi-caldiversityprovidesanadditiontotheutilityofdataproducedin

taxonomicworks.Therefore,itserve asatoolfor theextension

ofdescriptive worksfocusedintaxonomy,promotingthereuse

ofmorphologicalinformationinotherdisciplines,suchas

evolu-tionandecology.Duetoitsuniquestructure,theconstructionof

anatomicontologiesneedscooperationbetweencomputer

scien-tistsandtaxonomists,soastosimplifycomputationalplatforms.

Thiswayitwillbepossibletocontinuetaxonomicinvestigationas

itismadetoday,promotingitsexpansionandencouragingmore

researchinmorphologyyieldingvaluabledataforthestudyof

pat-terns,aswellashelpingelucidateprocessesinmoregeneralized

contexts.

Conflictsofinterest

Theauthordeclaresnoconflictsofinterest.

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Rodrigo Feitosa and John Lattke for

reviewing preliminary versions of this manuscript, being also

indebtedtotwoanonymousreviewers,whichgavevaluable

com-ments. The author is financially supported by Coordenac¸ão de

Aperfeic¸oamentodePessoaldeNívelSuperior(CAPES),grant

num-ber40001016005P5.

References

Agnarsson,I.,Kuntner,M.,2007.Taxonomyinachangingworld:seekingsolutions forascienceincrisis.Syst.Biol.56(3),531–539.

Balhoff,J.P.,Mikó,I.,Yoder,M.J.,Mullins,P.L.,Deans,A.R.,2013.Asemanticmodel forspeciesdescriptionappliedtotheensignwasps(Hymenoptera:Evaniidae) ofNewCaledonia.Syst.Biol.62(5),639–659.

Badarnah,L.,Fernández,J.E.,2015.Morphologicalconfigurationsinspiredbynature forthermalinsulationmaterials.In:InternationalAssociationforShelland Spa-tialStructures(IASS)Symposium.

Berendsohn,W.G., 1995.Theconcept of“potentialtaxa”indatabases. Taxon, 207–212.

Berendsohn,W.G.,Geoffroy,M.,2007.Networkingtaxonomicconcepts–uniting without“unitary-ism”.In:BiodiversityDatabases–Techniques,Politics,and Applications.,pp.13–22.

Bock,G.,Cardew,G.(Eds.),1999.Homology.JohnWiley&Sons.

Carvalho,M.R.,Bockmann,F.A.,Amorim,D.S.,Brandão,C.R.F.,deVivo,M.,Figueiredo, J.L.,etal.,2007.Taxonomicimpedimentorimpedimenttotaxonomy?A com-mentaryonsystematicsandthecybertaxonomic-automationparadigm.Evol. Biol.34(3),140–143.

Chalcraft,D.R.,ResetaritsJr.,W.J.,2003.Mappingfunctionalsimilarityofpredators onthebasisoftraitsimilarities.Am.Nat.162(4),390–402.

Cook,L.G.,Edwards,R.D.,Crisp,M.D.,Hardy,N.B.,2010.Needmorphologyalways berequiredfornewspeciesdescriptions?Invertebr.Syst.24(3),322–326. Cressey,D.,2011,July.Botanistsshredpaperworkintaxonomyreforms.Nature–

News.

Cui,H.,2012.CharaParserforfine-grainedsemanticannotationoforganism mor-phologicaldescriptions.J.Am.Soc.Inf.Sci.Technol.63(4),738–754. ´Cwiek-Kupczy ´nska,H.,Altmann,T.,Arend,D.,Arnaud,E.,Chen,D.,Cornut,G.,etal.,

2016.Measuresforinteroperabilityofphenotypicdata:minimuminformation requirementsandformatting.PlantMethods12(1),44.

Dahdul,W.M.,Balhoff,J.P.,Engeman,J.,Grande,T.,Hilton,E.J.,Kothari,C.,etal., 2010.Evolutionarycharacters,phenotypesandontologies:curatingdatafrom thesystematicbiologyliterature.PLoSONE5(5),e10708.

Deans,A.R.,Yoder,M.J.,Balhoff,J.P.,2012.Timetochangehowwedescribe biodi-versity.TrendsEcol.Evol.27(2),78–84.

Deans,A.R.,Lewis,S.E.,Huala,E.,Anzaldo,S.S.,Ashburner,M.,Balhoff,J.P.,etal., 2015.Findingourwaythroughphenotypes.PLoSBiol.13(1),e1002033. Douglas,M.E.,Matthews,W.J.,1992.Doesmorphologypredictecology?Hypothesis

testingwithinafreshwaterstreamfishassemblage.Oikos,213–224. Edgecombe,G.D.,2008.Anatomicalnomenclature:homology,standardizationand

datasets.Zootaxa1950,87–95.

Evenhuis,N.L.,2007.Helpingsolvethe“other”taxonomicimpediment:completing theeightstepstototalenlightenmentandtaxonomicnirvana.Zootaxa1407, 3–12.

Forest,F.,Grenyer,R.,Rouget,M.,Davies,T.J.,Cowling,R.M.,Faith,D.P.,etal.,2007. Preservingtheevolutionarypotentialofflorasinbiodiversityhotspots.Nature 445(7129),757–760.

Gewin,V.,2002.Taxonomy:alllivingthings,online.Nature418(6896),362–363. Godfray,H.C.J.,2002.Challengesfortaxonomy:thedisciplinewillhavetoreinvent

itselfifitistosurviveandflourish.Nature417,17–19.

Hebert,P.D.,Cywinska,A.,Ball,S.L.,2003.BiologicalidentificationsthroughDNA barcodes.Proc.R.Soc.Lond.B:Biol.Sci.270(1512),313–321.

Hoehndorf,R.,Alshahrani,M.,Gkoutos,G.V.,Gosline,G.,Groom,Q.,Hamann,T.,etal., 2016.Thefloraphenotypeontology(FLOPO):toolforintegratingmorphological traitsandphenotypesofvascularplants.J.Biomed.Semant.7(1),65. InternationalCommissiononZoologicalNomenclature,2012.Amendmentof

Arti-cles8,9,10,21and78oftheInternationalCodeofZoologicalNomenclatureto expandandrefinemethodsofpublication.ZooKeys219,1–10.

Isaac,N.J.,Mallet,J.,Mace,G.M.,2004.Taxonomicinflation:itsinfluenceon macroe-cologyandconservation.TrendsEcol.Evol.19,464–469.

Kapoor,V.C.,1998.PrinciplesandPracticesofAnimalTaxonomy.SciencePublishers. Kennedy,J.,Hyam,R.,Kukla,R.,Paterson,T.,2006.Standarddatamodel

representa-tionfortaxonomicinformation.OMICS:J.Integr.Biol.10(2),220–230. Mabee,P.M.,Ashburner,M.,Cronk,Q.,Gkoutos,G.V.,Haendel,M.,Segerdell,E.,

Mungall,C.,Westerfield,M.,2007a.Phenotypeontologies:thebridgebetween genomicsandevolution.TrendsEcol.Evol.22(7),345–350.

Mabee,P.M.,Arratia,G.,Coburn,M.,Haendel,M.,Hilton,E.J.,Lundberg,J.G.,Mayden, R.L.,Rios,N.,Westerfield,M.,2007b.Connectingevolutionarymorphologyto genomicsusingontologies:acasestudyfromCypriniformesincludingzebrafish. J.Exp.Zool.B:Mol.Dev.Evol.308(5),655.

Mallarino,R.,Abzhanov,A.,2012.Pathslesstraveled:evo-devoapproachesto inves-tigatinganimalmorphologicalevolution.Annu.Rev.CellDev.Biol.28,743–763. Miles,D.B.,Ricklefs,R.E.,1984.Thecorrelationbetweenecologyandmorphologyin

deciduousforestpasserinebirds.Ecology65(5),1629–1640.

Miles,D.B.,Ricklefs,R.E.,Travis,J.,1987.Concordanceofecomorphological relation-shipsinthreeassemblagesofpasserinebirds.Am.Nat.,347–364.

Miller,J.,Dikow,T.,Agosti,D.,Sautter,G.,Catapano,T.,Penev,L.,etal.,2012.From taxonomicliteraturetocybertaxonomiccontent.BMCBiol.10(1),1. Mooers,A.Ø.,2007.Conservationbiology:thediversityofbiodiversity.Nature445

(7129),717–718.

Mungall,C.J.,Gkoutos,G.V.,Smith,C.L.,Haendel,M.A.,Lewis,S.E.,Ashburner,M., 2010.Integratingphenotypeontologiesacrossmultiplespecies.GenomeBiol. 11(1),R2.

Mungall,C.J.,Torniai,C.,Gkoutos,G.V.,Lewis,S.E.,Haendel,M.A.,2012.Uberon,an integrativemulti-speciesanatomyontology.GenomeBiol.13(1),R5.

Padial,J.M.,Miralles,A.,DelaRiva,I.,Vences,M.,2010.Theintegrativefutureof taxonomy.Front.Zool.7(1),1.

Patterson,D.J.,Faulwetter,S.,Shipunov,A.,2008.Principlesforanames-based cyber-infrastructuretoserveallofbiology.Zootaxa1950,153–163.

Patterson,D.J.,Cooper,J.,Kirk,P.M.,Pyle,R.L.,Remsen,D.P.,2010.Namesarekeyto thebignewbiology.TrendsEcol.Evol.25(12),686–691.

Peterson,A.T.,Knapp,S.,Guralnick,R.,Soberón,J.,Holder,M.T.,2010.Thebig ques-tionsinbiodiversityinformatics.Syst.Biodivers.8,159–168.

Rajabi,H.,Ghoroubi,N.,Darvizeh,A.,Dirks,J.H.,Appel,E.,Gorb,S.N.,2015.A com-parativestudyoftheeffectsofvein-jointsonthemechanicalbehaviourofinsect wings:I.Singlejoints.BioinspirationBiomim.10(5),056003.

Ricklefs,R.E.,Travis,J.,1980.Amorphologicalapproachtothestudyofavian com-munityorganization.Auk,321–338.

Rinaldo,C.,Norton,C.,2009.BHL,TheBiodiversityHeritageLibrary:AnExpanding InternationalCollaboration.

Roth,V.L.,1984.Onhomology.Biol.J.Linn.Soc.22(1),13–29.

Sanfilippo,A.,Tratz,S.,Gregory,M.,Chappell,A.,Whitney,P.,Posse,C.,etal.,2006. Ontologicalannotationwithwordnet.In:Proc.Int.WordNetConferenceGWC. Serrano-Solano,B.,Ramos,A.D.,Hériché,J.K.,Ranea,J.A.,2017.Howcanfunctional annotationsbederivedfromprofilesofphenotypicannotations?BMC Bioin-form.18(1),96.

Sereno,P.C.,2007.Logicalbasisformorphologicalcharactersinphylogenetics. Cladistics23(6),565–587.

Sibbing,F.A.,Nagelkerke,L.A.,2000.ResourcepartitioningbyLakeTanabarbs pre-dictedfromfishmorphometricsandpreycharacteristics.Rev.FishBiol.Fish.10 (4),393–437.

Silva,R.R.,Brandão,C.R.F.,2010.Morphologicalpatternsandcommunity organiza-tioninleaf-litterantassemblages.Ecol.Monogr.80(1),107–124.

Thessen, A.E., Cui, H., Mozzherin, D.,2012. Applications of natural language processinginbiodiversityscience.Adv.Bioinform.,2012.

Thessen,A.E.,Patterson,D.J.,2011.Dataissuesinthelifesciences.ZooKeys105, 15–51.

VanValen,L.M.,1982.Homologyandcauses.J.Morphol.173(3),305–312. Vogt,L.,Bartolomaeus,T.,Giribet,G.,2010.Thelinguisticproblemof

morphol-ogy:structureversushomologyandthestandardizationofmorphologicaldata. Cladistics26(3),301–325.

Walls,R.L.,Athreya,B.,Cooper,L.,Elser,J.,Gandolfo,M.A.,Jaiswal,P.,etal.,2012. Ontologiesasintegrativetoolsforplantscience.Am.J.Bot.99(8),1263–1275. Washington,N.L.,Haendel,M.A.,Mungall,C.J.,Ashburner,M.,Westerfield,M.,Lewis,

S.E.,2009.Linkinghumandiseasestoanimalmodelsusingontology-based phe-notypeannotation.PLoSBiol.7(11),e1000247.

Wheeler,Q.D.,2007.Invertebratesystematicsorspinelesstaxonomy.Zootaxa1668, 11–18.

Will,K.W.,Rubinoff,D.,2004.Mythofthemolecule:DNAbarcodesforspeciescannot replacemorphologyforidentificationandclassification.Cladistics20(1),47–55. Wilson,E.O.,2002.Whatisnatureworth?WilsonQ.(1976)26(1),20–39. Yoder,M.J.,Miko,I.,Seltmann,K.C.,Bertone,M.A.,Deans,A.R.,2010.Agrossanatomy

ontologyforHymenoptera.PLoSONE5(12),e15991.

Zamir,D.,2013.Wherehaveallthecropphenotypesgone?PLoSBiol.11(6), e1001595.