The changing significance and definition of the biological voucher

Journal of Ethnobiology, 1986

Voucher specimens are a critical part of ethnobiological studies. They physically and permanently document data and form the basis for review or reassessment of the original study. An adequate voucher specimen must have diagnostic characters, be preserved in the condition, be accompanied by appropriate field data, and be maintained and readily accessible in a suitable repository institution. Planning prior to the collection of specimens is essential. Because they differ from taxonomic samples, special attention must be given to the collection and maintenance of ethnobiological specimens. In ethnobiological studies, the scientific name is based upon the identification of the voucher specimen and serves as the crucial link between folk knowledge and Western science.

Journal of Medicinally Active Plants, 2012

Plant-based natural products research is conducted using a wide variety of source material. The plant material is often obtained directly from the wild, from cultivated plants originally obtained from the wild, or purchased in raw or processed forms. In plant science a voucher specimen usually consists of a pressed, dried herbarium specimen with detailed collection data and serves as a record of an individual plant in time and space. This review article describes why vouchering is necessary and documents actual examples of how improper vouchering can result in serious problems. The primary reason for vouchering is to have a permanent record documenting the material that was used in a particular study. If a specimen is not saved or is not made available to others, the true identity of the plant materials used in a research project may be questioned. Due to the morphological and chemical complexities of interspecific hybrids, within-species variation, and the difficulty associated with identifying species in certain plant genera, the preservation of vouchers is essential for the documentation of the identity and source of such plant material. The use of best practices in specimen preparation is critical for successful docu-mentation. The lack of proper voucher specimens for some research projects has led to serious problems, such as the inability to reproduce critical results, the association of chemical data with the wrong genus and species, and even the complete rejection of the published research results. In cases where plant material was initially misidentified and properly prepared voucher specimens were available, the identities of the research material were eventually corrected and the data was subsequently associated with the correct species, retaining the inherent scientific value of the research.

This issue of the journal Bionomina is entirely devoted to the debate regarding the need for actual physical reference specimens, nomen-bearers, and their deposition in (accessible) institutions and venues as the foundation for the attribution (assignment) of nomina for new species and/or subspecies. Dubois (2017a) discusses arguments for and against, proposes changes to the formulations and glossary of the Code, and the minimal conditions regarding accessibility, openness, preservation conditions for specimens and collections, that should be required of public institutions and private collections and facilities that house collections which include nomen-bearing specimens. Ultimately the author argues without reservations for changes to the Code to require such deposition of at least one nomen-bearer, but includes the option for consideration of exceptional cases by a qualified body of international experts from relevant disciplines, so as to avoid the inevitable arbitrariness associated with individual decisions. The same author pursues the same goals of clarification of the formulations and terminology (specifically the term " diagnosis " and related terms) used in the Code for the establishment of firmer, less ambiguous, definitions in scientific discussion and debate in his second contribution (Dubois 2017b). A number of other contributions (Orrico 2017; Raposo & Kirwan 2017) engage in the debate about the need for actual physical reference specimens vs. the proposals allowing for the provision of other forms of 'evidence' (photographs, nucleid acid sequences, etc.) or 'representation'. Ultimately they all emphasize how these other 'representations' do not allow for either the material wealth of evidence and information, nor for the verifiability of that information, and the establishment of an 'evidentiary chain' of transmission/transference, that physical reference specimens do. In some cases very specific technical arguments are made for the kind of digital evidence that would also make the verification of such 'evidentiary chains' possible, accessible and open (Aguiar et al. 2017). Specifically the provision of digital RAW files in addition to the final processed files for the digital photographs. A couple of the previous contributions also briefly discuss how arguments against the need for deposition of nomen-bearers that invoke ecological impact and similar arguments (i.e. because of the alleged impact of the collection of physical specimens) would have at the very least to provide serious scientific documentation for those claims, one backed by experts in a number of the relevant disciplines. Another contribution (Löbl 2017) additionally provides a series of very cogent examples comparing the impact of both wide-scale human activity factors, that of other natural organisms and that of collecting on populations of biological organisms (which does not mean that in select, rare,

PLOS Biology, 2023

This appendix contains the acronyms and the full names of the museums from which specimens were included in the "Voucher Specimens Details" appendix. Additionally, it gives the contact information (for both plain and e-mail), as well as a reference to the museum's website and mammal database. It also provides information about alternative names for the museum. These can include older names or names in other languages. Finally, the appendix also gives the total number of specimens from the museum included in the "Voucher Specimens Details" appendix.

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2008

Biological Reviews, 2010

Housed worldwide, mostly in museums and herbaria, is a vast collection of biological specimens developed over centuries. These biological collections, and associated taxonomic and systematic research, have received considerable long-term public support. The work remaining in systematics has been expanding as the estimated total number of species of organisms on Earth has risen over recent decades, as have estimated numbers of undescribed species. Despite this increasing task, support for taxonomic and systematic research, and biological collections upon which such research is based, has declined over the last 30-40 years, while other areas of biological research have grown considerably, especially those that focus on environmental issues. Reflecting increases in research that deals with ecological questions (e.g. what determines species distribution and abundance) or environmental issues (e.g. toxic pollution), the level of research attempting to use biological collections in museums or herbaria in an ecological/environmental context has risen dramatically during about the last 20 years. The perceived relevance of biological collections, and hence the support they receive, should be enhanced if this trend continues and they are used prominently regarding such environmental issues as anthropogenic loss of biodiversity and associated ecosystem function, global climate change, and decay of the epidemiological environment. It is unclear, however, how best to use biological collections in the context of such ecological/environmental issues or how best to manage collections to facilitate such use. We demonstrate considerable and increasingly realized potential for research based on biological collections to contribute to ecological/environmental understanding. However, because biological collections were not originally intended for use regarding such issues and have inherent biases and limitations, they are proving more useful in some contexts than in others. Biological collections have, for example, been particularly useful as sources of information regarding variation in attributes of individuals (e.g. morphology, chemical composition) in relation to environmental variables, and provided important information in relation to species' distributions, but less useful in the contexts of habitat associations and population sizes. Changes to policies, strategies and procedures associated with biological collections could mitigate these biases and limitations, and hence make such collections more useful in the context of ecological/environmental issues. Haphazard and opportunistic collecting could be replaced with strategies for adding to existing collections that prioritize projects that use biological collections and include, besides taxonomy and systematics, a focus on significant environmental/ecological issues. Other potential changes include increased recording of the nature and extent of collecting effort and information associated with each specimen such as nearby habitat and other individuals observed but not collected. Such changes have begun to occur within some institutions. Institutions that house biological collections should, we think, pursue a mission of 'understanding the life of the planet to inform its stewardship' , as such a mission would facilitate increased use of biological collections in an ecological/environmental context and hence lead to increased appreciation,

Clemann, N., Rowe, K.M.C., Rowe, K.C., Raadik, T., Gomon, M., Menkhorst, P., Sumner, J., Bray, D., Norman, M. and Melville, J. 2014. Value and impacts of collecting vertebrate voucher specimens, with guidelines for ethical collection. Memoirs of Museum Victoria 72: 141-151.

Journal of Fish Biology, 2011

The introduction of Next Generation Sequencing into the disciplines of plant systematics, ecology, and metagenomics, among others, has resulted in a phenomenal increase in the collecting and storing of tissue samples and their respective vouchers. This manual suggests standard practices that will insure the quality and preservation of the tissue and vouchers and their respective data. Although written for use by the Smithsonian Institution botanists it suggests a framework for collecting tissues and vouchers that other research programs can adapt to their own needs. It includes information on collecting voucher specimens, collecting plant tissue intended for genomic analysis, how to manage these collections, and how to incorporate the data into a database management system. It also includes many useful references for collecting and processing collections. We hope it will be useful for a variety of botanists but especially those who know how to collect plants and want to collect tissue samples that will be useful for genomic research, and those who are skilled in lab work and want to know how to properly voucher and record their tissue collections.