Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42020652›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Storing accepted scientific names alone can lead to misinterpretation of botanical data.

Adam Richard-Bollans, Bob Allkin, Francesco Civita, Kristina Patmore, Rafaël Govaerts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Adam Richard-BollansRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UK. a.richard-bollans@kew.org.
Bob AllkinRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UK.
Francesco CivitaRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UK.
Kristina PatmoreRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UK.
Rafaël GovaertsRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Botanists use accepted scientific names from authoritative databases to standardise taxonomic classifications. As taxonomic understanding evolves, these databases are updated, causing accepted names to change over time. A key decision when creating datasets about plants is whether to store the scientific names as originally recorded in a data source or to resolve them to currently accepted names. This decision partly depends on the transitivity of name resolution across taxonomic database versions: if name A resolves to B as the 'accepted' name in one version, and B to C in a later version, will A also resolve to C in that later version? Using the World Checklist of Vascular Plants and World Flora Online, we demonstrate that this transitivity fails for approximately 1% and 6% of names, respectively, and that the number of these discrepancies increases as new taxonomy versions are released. We recommend that botanical datasets store verbatim names as found and resolve them to accepted names as close to the point of end-use as possible, using the most recent taxonomic database.

Indexed as

BotanyPlantsTerminology as TopicDatabases, FactualTaxonomic databasesTaxonomic name resolutionTaxonomyWorld Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP)World Flora Online (WFO)

Identifiers

PMID42020652
PMCPMC13381894

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.