Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41465663›Full record

ReviewInsects2025

On the Importance of Contrasts in Taxonomic Diagnoses: A Survey of 405 Newly Described Insect Genera.

Laurence Packer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Laurence PackerDepartment of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1711-8203

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2020-06991
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnoses are one of the most important ways that taxonomists make new taxa recognisable by others. A recent paper stated that diagnoses for newly described organisms should include both the characteristic(s) of the new taxon (providing state-specificity) and name the taxa with which they are compared (giving contrastiveness). I argue that the characteristics of the compared taxa should also be included such that the diagnostic features are not only contrastIVE but also overtly contrastED I surveyed 278 papers wherein 405 new insect genera were described. Forty-four genera did not have a formal diagnosis, among the rest, there was a total of 427 diagnoses because some genera had multiple diagnoses. Among these, 83 (19.4%) had one or more diagnostic states overtly contrasted and over one-eighth (13.9%) contrasted all of them. Unsurprisingly, diagnoses that overtly compared the new genus to others were significantly more likely to include characteristics that were contrasted than did diagnoses that were lists or combinations. I discuss how features should be contrasted in diagnoses.

Indexed as

best practicesbiodiversity assessmentease-of-useinternational code of zoological nomenclaturetaxonomic practice

Identifiers

PMID41465663
PMCPMC12734300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.