A new centipede (reproduced with permission from the copyright holder) deceived taxonomists – but the specimens had obscure origins.
© MAGNOLIA PRESS; C. DOMÉNECH ET AL., ZOOTAXA, 4483 (3), 401 (2018)
By Yao-Hua Law
In 2018, a new species of centipede appeared on the pages of the prominent taxonomy newspaper Zootaxa. Over 14 centimeters long, with impressive teal-colored legs, he lives in the mountainous and mossy forests of the Philippines. Now, however, the centipede is in the spotlight. The Philippine government claims that the Spanish amateur neurologist and biologist who described the species acquired its specimens illegally.
Neither the magazine’s editors nor its peer reviewers noticed the lapse – and the magazine has no policy requiring documentation that the specimens were collected with proper authorization. Some publishers say Science that must change. Others are concerned with making research difficult when species not described are rapidly disappearing. And everyone agrees that journals would have difficulties enforcing these rules, given the wide variation in legal requirements in countries. “There is simply no way for a newspaper to police this,” says Maarten Christenhusz, an independent botanist and editor in chief of Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.
Carles Doménech, from the University of Alicante, Spain, contacted Filipino collectors after seeing images of the centipede online. One, Michael Andrew Cipat, took wild centipedes and sold them – alive and dead – to Doménech in 2016 and 2017. Cipat tells Science he had collection licenses and that a friend with export licenses dispatched the specimens. But the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources says it is illegal to sell specimens to a foreign researcher who has not signed an agreement with DENR. “The Philippine government does not tolerate such illegal acts,” wrote a representative to the Science. Collectors can be arrested or fined under the Philippine wildlife protection law.
Doménech says that he did not know that he needed licenses to export centipedes, calling himself a “newbie” who almost always worked alone. After he submitted his article describing the new species, which he called Scolopendra Paradox, none Zootaxa nor did any of the five reviewers of his manuscript ask about licenses, he says. “I know now [was] a mistake, ”he wrote by email. “Now I capture my specimens and I don’t let anyone do it for me without the corresponding legal permits.”
Zhi-Qiang Zhang, editor in chief of Zootaxa, who studies mites at Landcare Research in New Zealand, says that while the magazine does not impose permission requirements, individual editors can reject manuscripts that are not allowed. He says the magazine’s editors had previously discussed whether to instruct authors to follow the license requirements and could not agree. “Most publishers had negative opinions about ‘licenses’ or ‘legal requirements’ for specimens,” said Zhang, citing opinions that such regulations restrict research and conservation of biodiversity.
A reviewer of Doménech’s manuscript, Carlos Martínez, centipede taxonomist at the Zoological Museum at the University of Turku, says he was “really crazy” to learn about the origins of centipede specimens. “As reviewers, we have the right to know whether the samples were obtained illegally,” he says. “We have the right to refuse to review the article.” Martínez says he interviewed four of the five Filipino collectors mentioned in the newspaper and confirmed that the specimens were illegal. But he says that reviewers cannot be expected to routinely investigate the legality of the samples. “We, the reviewers, should not be the police.”
Illegal research specimens have been exposed occasionally, but journal editors disagree about the magnitude of the problem. An editor described it as “insignificant”; another said it is “impossible to know”. They also disagree about what to do about it. Louis Deharveng, deputy editor-in-chief of ZooKeys and a researcher emeritus of arthropods at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, says an editorial policy on licenses “is essential”.
But among five respected taxonomy journals, two – the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society and Zootaxa—Don’t instruct authors to comply with specimen collection laws. (Science will soon add this compliance with legal requirements to its editorial policy.)
Shaun Winterton, editor in chief of Systematic Entomology and an entomologist from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, says his newspaper tells authors to follow the law, but adds: “If we, as publishers, suspect that the material was collected illegally, it can be difficult for us to confirm.” (He notes that he is speaking on behalf of the magazine, not his employer.) The complex and variable legal conditions that countries impose on research are an obstacle.
An additional complication is the Nagoya International Protocol, which aims to guarantee “the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources”. The agreement may govern the import of some specimens, but it is not clear whether it applies to taxonomy specimens. The Nagoya Protocol allows each signatory country to define what constitutes the use of genetic resources; Spain says that EU legislation that enforces the Nagoya Protocol does not apply to taxonomic studies like Doménech’s.
Gonzalo Giribet, editor in chief of Invertebrate Systematics and a zoologist at Harvard University, adds that reviewers cannot take responsibility either. “They are doing it altruously,” he says, which makes him wary of adding legal issues to the review burden. “Journals must have clear statements about the origins of biological materials and ethics, and the ultimate responsibility [for legality] must lie with the authors. “
Clear information about legal requirements would help reviewers, editors and researchers, says Caroline Fukushima, an arachnologist at the Finnish Museum of Natural History. In June 2020, in Conservation Biology, she and colleagues recommended creating a platform for countries’ legal requirements for wildlife research. “We are facing habitat destruction, so we must make life easier and faster for scientists,” she says.