|
| The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species uses
geographical distribution as a key criterion in assessing
the conservation status of species. Accurate knowledge
of a species’ distribution is therefore essential to ensure
the correct categorization is applied. Here we compare
the geographical distribution of 35 species of chameleons
endemic to East Africa, using data from the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and data compiled
by a taxonomic expert. Data screening showed 99.9% of
GBIF records used outdated taxonomy and 20% had no
locality coordinates. Conversely the expert dataset used
100% up-to-date taxonomy and only seven records (3%) had
no coordinates. Both datasets were used to generate range
maps for each species, which were then used in preliminary
Red List categorization. There was disparity in the categories
of 10 species, with eight being assigned a lower threat
category based on GBIF data compared with expert data,
and the other two assigned a higher category. Our results
suggest that before conducting desktop assessments of
the threatened status of species, aggregated museum locality
data should be vetted against current taxonomy and
localities should be verified. We conclude that available
online databases are not an adequate substitute for
taxonomic experts in assessing the threatened status of
species and that Red List assessments may be compromised
unless this extra step of verification is carried out. | |
|