Summary of taxonomic assessment of Australian squamates.

Melville, Jane; Chapple, David G.; Keogh, J. Scott; Sumner, Joanna; Amey, Andrew; Bowles, Phil; Brennan, Ian G.; Couper, Patrick; Donnellan, Stephen C.; Doughty, Paul; Edwards, Danielle L.; Ellis, Ryan J.; Esquerré, Damien; Fenker, Jéssica; Gardner, Michael G.; Georges, Arthur; Haines, Margaret L.; Hoskin, Conrad J.; Hutchinson, Mark; Moritz, Craig; Nankivell, James; Oliver, Paul; Pavón-Vázquez, Carlos J.; Pepper, Mitzy; Rabosky, Daniel L.; Sanders, Kate; Shea, Glenn; Singhal, Sonal; Wilmer, Jessica Worthington; Tingley, Reid

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001210.s005

pbio.3001210.s005.docx (13.63 kB)

Summary of taxonomic assessment of Australian squamates.

journal contribution

posted on 2021-06-01, 17:25 authored by Jane Melville, David G. Chapple, J. Scott Keogh, Joanna Sumner, Andrew Amey, Phil Bowles, Ian G. Brennan, Patrick Couper, Stephen C. Donnellan, Paul Doughty, Danielle L. Edwards, Ryan J. Ellis, Damien Esquerré, Jéssica Fenker, Michael G. Gardner, Arthur Georges, Margaret L. Haines, Conrad J. Hoskin, Mark Hutchinson, Craig Moritz, James Nankivell, Paul Oliver, Carlos J. Pavón-Vázquez, Mitzy Pepper, Daniel L. Rabosky, Kate Sanders, Glenn Shea, Sonal Singhal, Jessica Worthington Wilmer, Reid Tingley

All values are numbers of species. Data displayed are for species identified as “high probability” or “definitely” taxonomic work required. Predicted taxonomic outcomes are categorized as leading to an “Increase” or “Decrease” in species number or if it is a “Species Complex” for which the species boundaries and diversity if very complex and too difficult to currently predict. Families with number of assessed species that are <75% of total are highlighted—indicating panel was unable to provide expert assessment on a high proportion of species. Families with ≥30% of assessed species would lead to an increase in diversity are highlighted as groups requiring high levels of taxonomic revision.

(DOCX)