GuidelineSystematic biology2025
Type Genomics: A Framework for Integrating Genomic Data into Biodiversity and Taxonomic Research.
Guideline in Systematic biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phylogenomic and Comparative Genomic Analyses Reveal Deep Evolutionary Structure and Cryptic Diversity in the GenusInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Species identification, discovery, and biomonitoring: Strategic priorities for DNA barcoding in Europe, set in a global context.Bioscience · 2026Article
- Integrative taxonomy of cryptic Pachypus chafers using museomics, morphometrics, barcoding, and genomic DNA analysis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Pachypodinae).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Name-bearing type specimens have a fundamental role in characterizing biodiversity, as these objects represent the physical link between a scientific name and the biological organism. Type specimens are usually deposited in natural history collections, which provide key infrastructure for research on essential biological structures and processes, while preserving records of biodiversity for future generations. Modern systematics increasingly depends on genetic and genomic data to differentiate and characterize species. While the results of genome sequencing are often connected to a physical voucher specimen, they are rarely derived from the ultimate taxonomic reference for a species, that is, the name-bearing type specimens. This is a known but underappreciated problem for ensuring the replicability of findings, especially those that affect the interpretation of biodiversity distributions and phylogenetic relationships. Destructive sampling of museum specimens, particularly of type material, often carries a high risk of sequencing failure, and thus the cost of damage to the specimen may outweigh the resulting benefit. Both taxonomic work and genome sequencing require specialist skills, and there are often communication gaps between the respective experts. A new, harmonized approach, maximizing information extraction while minimizing risk to type specimens, is a critical step forward toward linking disciplines across biodiversity research and promoting a better taxonomic and systematic understanding of eukaryotic diversity. The genetic makeup of a type specimen is a fundamental part of its biological information, which can and should be made freely and digitally available through type genomics. Here, we describe guidelines for the use of nomenclatural types in genome sequencing approaches, considering different kinds of types in different stages of preservation and different data types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.