diversity

Article
What Does It Take to Further Our Knowledge of Plant Diversity
in the Megadiverse South Africa?
Mashudu Patience Mamathaba 1 , Kowiyou Yessoufou 2, * and Annah Moteetee 1

1 Department of Botany and Plant Biotechnology, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park,

Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
2 Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg,
Auckland Park, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In the context of biodiversity crisis, targeted efforts are required to accelerate the discovery
and description of the still-unknown species. In the present study, we collected data on current
knowledge of plant richness in South Africa and used a statistical modeling technique to predict what
might still be missing in the country. We found that we might be missing 1400–1575 plant species,
and it might take 40–45 years to identify and describe these species aided by 64–315 taxonomists.
Surveyed taxonomists spent USD 95,559, on average, to describe one species. At this rate, USD
150,506,142 would be required to describe the 1575 species (modeling) or USD 133,783,237 for the
1400 remaining species (expert opinion). However, these estimates do not correspond to what is
specifically required for only species description but does integrate connected activities, e.g., running
cost, bursary, salaries, grants, etc. Furthermore, these estimates do not account for the possibility
of taxonomic revision, which, on its own, needs to be funded, nor do they account for molecular
laboratory requirement. Nevertheless, if we consider that 15% of the predicted funds are solely spent
on taxonomic activities, we would need ~USD 14,334 on one species. Overall, our study provides
figures that can inform attempts to fuel efforts toward a comprehensive assessment of the unique
Citation: Mamathaba, M.P.;
South Africa’s biodiversity.
Yessoufou, K.; Moteetee, A. What
Does It Take to Further Our
Keywords: biodiversity; floristically megadiverse; ethnobotanical knowledge; biodiversity assessments;
Knowledge of Plant Diversity in the
taxonomic activities; comprehensive assessment
Megadiverse South Africa? Diversity
2022, 14, 748. https://doi.org/
10.3390/d14090748

Academic Editor: Mario A. Pagnotta 1. Introduction

Received: 5 June 2022 How many species are there on Earth? This is an important question for all conserva-
Accepted: 8 September 2022 tion biologists, as it is not possible to effectively conserve biodiversity if we have a biased
Published: 11 September 2022 knowledge of its extent [1–4]. Several studies have investigated the question [1,3–5] not
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
only to estimate species diversity on Earth but also to quantify the remaining efforts to be
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
deployed to maximize the chance of discovering and describing currently unknown species.
published maps and institutional affil- These studies reported strikingly different estimates that are, in all cases, dramatically
iations. greater than the currently known 1.5 million species [6]. Early studies variously predicted
species richness to be ~100 million [5,7–9], 8.7 million [3], or ~2 million species [10]. More
recent studies escalated the predictions to ~1 trillion [11] or 1–6 billion species on Earth [4].
The striking difference in estimates is due to the fact that some studies preferentially
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. focused on certain taxonomic groups, and they mostly did not use the same predictive
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. tools. For example, in their analysis, Larsen et al. [4] incorporated for the first time morpho-
This article is an open access article logically cryptic species discovered through molecular analyses, and this exponentially in-
distributed under the terms and creases the predicted global species richness in comparison with previous studies (e.g., [3]).
conditions of the Creative Commons Interestingly, even with these dramatic changes in predictions, one constant remains across
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
all predictions; for example, Mora et al.’s [3] prediction for plant species richness on Earth
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
(298,000 species) is similar to the number of plant species currently described, which is
4.0/).

Diversity 2022, 14, 748. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14090748 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity

Diversity 2022, 14, 748 2 of 15

roughly ~300,000 species [6]. In addition, Mora et al.’s [3] predictive model has a strong
power (R2 = 96%), suggesting that, in a given taxonomic level (e.g., genera, families or
orders, etc.), 96 out of 100 of its species richness are correctly predicted by the model.
While these studies are assisting us in picturing the extent of biodiversity at the global
scale, the estimate of biodiversity at a local scale, e.g., at a country level, receives relatively
less attention. This is an important knowledge gap that needs to be addressed, given that
conservation efforts start from the country level toward the global conservation effort.
Although the ecosystem services provided by biodiversity strongly contribute to human
well-being [12–15], species providing these services are being lost at an unprecedented rate,
corresponding to the modern biodiversity crisis or the sixth mass extinction [16,17]. This
crisis is characterized by an exponential loss of biodiversity, irrespective of the scenarios
adopted—highly conservative or conservation scenarios [17]. Ceballos et al.’s [17] study
revealed that species loss that occurred in the last 114 years could have taken 800 to
10,000 years to go extinct under a scenario of sustainable biodiversity management. An
earlier report indicated that the current biodiversity loss may be 1000–10,000 times greater
than the background rate of species loss [13].
However, the vast majority of studies that demonstrate this biodiversity crisis focus
on vertebrates. For example, 800 bird species in the islands of Oceania went extinct
in the last 2000 years due to anthropogenic pressure [18]. In the 1600s, extinctions of
various vertebrate taxonomic groups (e.g., large mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
and fishes) were also reported [17,19–21]. For plant species, there is less information
about the pattern of the extinction rate as compared with vertebrates, and only 5% of
described plant species are IUCN-assessed for their extinction status [22]. In addition,
among the IUCN-assessed plant species, over 70% are at risk of extinction, a much higher
proportion than the 22% reported for vertebrates [22]. The much conservative estimate of
species loss suggests that the proportion of at-risk plant species might be similar to that
of vertebrates. Specific predictions also suggest that some entire ecosystems may even go
extinct in only 110 years (e.g., mangrove forests) if current anthropogenic pressures are
maintained on the environment [23]. The loss of species is perhaps the most critical concern
of our times, given that species loss would drive the loss of valuable ecosystem services
and thus compromising human well-being [14,24,25].
In light of the alarming statistics of this biodiversity crisis, preemptive and urgent
actions are required to prevent species loss at all costs. However, how can such actions take
place in an effective way if we have limited knowledge of the extent of existing species
diversity? More concerning is the fact that the currently known extinction rate may be
greater than the reality because several unknown species are undoubtedly sliding into
extinction unnoticed, and we would not be able to account for them in our current estimate
of the extent of biodiversity crisis since these species are not known to science. This calls for
strong commitments to estimate the potential number of currently unknown species so that
appropriate efforts (number of taxonomists, funds, time, and resources required) can be
estimated, planned for, and deployed [3,26]. Given the ongoing biodiversity crisis and the
tremendous ecosystem services that may be at risk (due to loss of biodiversity), integrating
taxonomic efforts into policy development documents becomes a national priority for all
countries, particularly those that are known as megadiverse, e.g., South Africa, due to their
incredible species richness.
South Africa has about 24,000 plant species and is home to 10% of the world’s plant
species richness [27,28] with more than 50% being endemic plant species. The terrestrial
vegetation is classified into nine (09) biomes, including the Albany thicket, Dessert Forest,
Fynbos, Grassland, Indian Ocean Coastal Belt, Nama Karoo, Savannah, and Succulent
Karoo [29]. Furthermore, from the six renowned global floral kingdoms, South Africa
hosts one in its entirety, that is, the Cape Floral Kingdom. This floral kingdom is deemed
the smallest, richest, and most threatened of all [27,30]. Moreover, South Africa also has
three recognized biodiversity hotspots i.e., the Cape Floristic Region, Succulent Karoo, and
Maputaland–Pondoland–Albany hotspot [27]. Unfortunately, 9% of South African plants
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 3 of 15

are threatened, and these threatened plants are mostly found in the Fynbos biome, the
most threatened biome on Earth [30]. In addition, an early assessment of 427 vegetation
types revealed that 5% of them are critically endangered, 12% are endangered, and 16% are
vulnerable, mostly in the Cape Floristic Region [31].
This South African context of plant and biome conservation status means that there is
an urgent need to accelerate taxonomic assessment so that measures and plans can be put in
place not only for conservation but also for the development of ethnobotanical knowledge
(since knowledge cannot be developed about species we do not know). Although South
Africa has a long rich history of taxonomic assessment, “there is still a need for further
exploration of South Africa’s biodiversity, so that improved foundational biodiversity
information can be provided to end-users” [32]. Efforts toward such improvement cannot
be randomly performed; they have to be focused, targeted, prioritized, and informed with
knowledge of what potentially remains to be discovered and described. In response to
these requirements, the present study aimed to estimate not only the number of unknown
vascular plant species in South Africa’s flora but also the efforts required (time, funds,
and number of taxonomists) for a comprehensive botanical assessment of the megadiverse
South Africa.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
South Africa, with its area of 1,219,602 km2 , is located at the southernmost tip of
the African continent (Figure 1), from 22◦ S to 35◦ S latitude and from 17◦ E to 33◦ E
longitude [33]. Climatically, South Africa is a moderately dry country: ~67% of the country
receives less than 500 mm annual rainfall [34], and this rainfall generally occurs in summer,
except around Cape Town, which witnesses a winter rainfall [35]. South Africa’s climatic
conditions generally range from Mediterranean in the southwestern corner of the country
to subtropical in the northeast corner [33]. In terms of biodiversity, around 8% of the
world plant species is found in South Africa (i.e., ~24,000 species), making it one of the
17 megadiverse countries in the world. This huge biodiversity is found across nine biomes,
namely Nama Karoo, Succulent Karoo, Fynbos, Forest, Albany Thicket, Savannah, Dessert,
Indian Ocean Coastal Belt, and Grassland [29]. A vast network of protected areas is
delimited in South Africa, including 1527 national parks, nature reserves, wilderness areas,
mountain catchment areas, and world heritage sites [36]. Three major biodiversity hotspots
are identified in South Africa, namely the Cape Floristic Region, Succulent Karoo, and
Maputaland–Pondoland–Albany biodiversity hotspot. South Africa is the only country
that hosts an entire floral kingdom, the Cape Floral Kingdom, which is the smallest of the
world’s six floral kingdoms [37]. The Cape Floral Kingdom harbors >9000 plant species
with ~70% endemic plants. However, evidence points to more species to be described,
especially from biomes that are botanically less explored, e.g., the Indian Ocean Coastal
Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
Belt. Revealing the extent of the country’s diversity is key for policy development in the
field of taxonomy and conservation.

LocationofofSouth
Figure1.1.Location
Figure SouthAfrica.
Africa.

2.2. Data Collection

To predict the number of unknown plant species, we collected two types of data: the
number of native plant species currently known and catalogued in South Africa collected
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 4 of 15

2.2. Data Collection

To predict the number of unknown plant species, we collected two types of data: the
number of native plant species currently known and catalogued in South Africa collected
from the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI, https://www.sanbi.org/,
accessed 1 June 2021) and the publication years (Supplementary Material Table S1) of all
catalogued South African native plant species collected from the International Plant Name
Index (https://www.ipni.org/, accessed 1 May 2020). A database consisting of the list of
native species and their corresponding dates of publication was then created on an Excel
spreadsheet.
Next, we estimated the effort required to identify and describe the unknown species.
In this study, effort is defined as the time, fund, and number of taxonomists that could be
required for the discovery and taxonomic description of unknown species. To collect data
on these variables (time, fund, and the number of taxonomists), we relied on expert knowl-
edge collected through questionnaires (Supplemental Information), cell phone discussions,
and office visits. These experts were identified from a SANBI record known as “SANBI
biodiversity series 26” [38]. This record identified 34 plant taxonomists; these taxonomists
are certified professionals currently employed in academic, private, or governmental (e.g.,
SANBI) research institutions. We also considered retired taxonomists, some of whom were
suggested by taxonomists that we contacted during data collection, which resulted in the
total number of taxonomists being 42. However, the challenge was that we could not reach
the retired taxonomists even after contacting the institutions in which they were based prior
to retirement. Prior to the questionnaire being distributed, a pilot study was conducted
with two of the highly ranked taxonomists in South Africa. We used the outcomes of the
pilot study to revise our questionnaire. To reach potential international taxonomists and
collaborators who have at least described one species in South Africa, a Google survey was
created and the link was shared. Unfortunately, there were no international respondent
even with all the efforts made to reach them. The goal was to collect quantitative data on
the efforts required to identify and describe a new species, including time, money, and
work force.
The questionnaire was divided into two parts; the first part focused on the demogra-
phy, which highlighted the relevant qualifications and current employment status of the
taxonomist (active or retired), etc. The second part of the questionnaire focused on the
taxonomic activities of the experts, which required the taxonomists to highlight the history
of their job as a taxonomist, how many species they have identified during their career, and,
most importantly, their estimation of the average efforts it took to identify a single species
(Supplemental Information). All data collected are shown in Table S2.

2.3. Data Analysis

All quantitative analyses in this research project were carried out in R version 3.5.3 [39].

2.3.1. Number of Unknown Plant Species in South Africa

We first tested, using the Dickey–Fuller test [40], whether the number of species
described in South Africa over time (1696–2019) follows a nonconstant variance. After
confirming the nonconstant variance, we fitted a generalized autoregressive conditional
heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model to the data. The GARCH model was developed by
Engle [41] to model volatile time-series data, i.e., data with a nonconstant variance. Different
GARCH models were fitted with various starting time intervals for the modeling ((0,0),
(1,1), (2,2), . . . ). The best GARCH model was selected using Akaike information criteria
(AIC). The selected model was then used to predict the future trend of the number of
species over the next 120 years. This trend allows for the identification of the year Y1 where
the number of species to describe becomes 0 (Y1 means the year all species are described).
The difference between Y1 and Y0 (the present) corresponds to how long it will take to
describe the remaining species in the country (see R-Script in Supplemental Information).
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 5 of 15

Apart from the modeling approach, an expert’s opinion approach was also used to
estimate the number of unknown species. This method was also used in a similar study
that Carbayo and Marques [42] conducted in Brazil. In their study, Carbayo and Marques
surveyed 44 taxonomists (almost 9% of the employed and doctoral taxonomists in Brazil)
to estimate the resources required to describe the entire animal kingdom. In the present
study, a question was included in the questionnaire asking taxonomists to estimate, given
their respective experiences as taxonomists, the number of the remaining species that they
believe are yet to be discovered in South Africa.

2.3.2. Determination of Efforts Required to Identify and Describe the Unknown

Plant Species
2.3.2.1. Time
For the time variable, the total number of respondents to our questionnaire (N) was
considered as well as the respondent’s career duration (∆t) and the number of species
described by the respondents during their respective careers (ni ). Then, the estimated
time required to describe the remaining unknown plant species (Ts) was estimated as
summarized below:
N = total number of respondents (taxonomists)
∆t = duration of career
ni = number of species described during the career of a taxonomist (i)
If a taxonomist i describes ni species during his or her career that lasts the time ti , this
implies that this taxonomist takes, on average, the time ti /ni to describe 1 species. As a
result, for all the N taxonomists, the time ts to describe 1 species is
ts = (1/N)∑(ti/ni) = average time to describe 1 species, considering all respondents.
Then the total time Ts required to describe all the unknown species Nunknown is
Ts = ts × Nunknown (estimated time required to describe the remaining unknown plant
species).

2.3.2.2. Funds
The funds variable (fi) was determined by adding three factors (grants, salaries, and
training fund of taxonomists). Research grants are the grants awarded to run and maintain
a lab, salaries are the net salary per month of the principal investigator of the lab, and
training funds are the total funds used to obtain a relevant qualification by a student
(undergraduate to PhD in taxonomy). The fund required to describe all unknown species
was estimated as follows:
fi = (grants + salaries + training fund) = total fund spent by a taxonomist i to describe
ni species during his or her entire career.
fi /ni = funds to describe 1 species by a taxonomist i.
f = (1/N)∑(fi /ni ) = average fund to describe 1 species by all N respondents.
F = f × Nunknown = (total funds required to describe all unknown species)
Since this fund is not solely used for taxonomic studies, we also calculated 15% of
the fund reported elsewhere as the portion of the fund F specifically used for taxonomic
projects [42].

2.3.2.3. Number of Taxonomists

To determine the number of taxonomists needed to identify and describe Nunknown species ,
the following was carried out:
The total number of species described by N respondents is ∑ni , ni being the number
of species described by a taxonomist i during his or her career.
As such, the number of taxonomists required to describe Nunknown species is
Number of taxonomists = N × Nunknown
∑ ni
.
 To determine the number of taxonomists needed to identify and describe Nunknown
species, the following was carried out:

The total number of species described by N respondents is ∑ni, ni being the number
of species described by a taxonomist i during his or her career.
As such, the number of taxonomists required to describe Nunknown species is
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 6 of 15
Number of taxonomists = .

3. Results
3. Results
3.1. Structure of the Population of Taxonomists Who Took Part in This Study
3.1. Structure of the Population of Taxonomists Who Took Part in This Study
3.1.1. Demography
3.1.1. Demography of of Taxonomists
Taxonomists
The population
The population ofof plant
plant taxonomists
taxonomists (Figure
(Figure 2A)
2A) who
who took
took part
part in
in this
this study
study is
is made
made
up of
up of aa majority
majority of
of men
men (63%).
(63%). The
The vast
vast majority of this
majority of this pool
pool ofof taxonomists
taxonomists isis categorized
categorized
as of
as of middle
middle age
age (68%);
(68%); aa few
few of
of them
them are
are in
in their
their youth
youth (20–40
(20–40 years
years old),
old), and
and aa low
low
percentage of currently active taxonomists are categorized as reaching a
percentage of currently active taxonomists are categorized as reaching a mature age (11%; mature age
(11%; Figure 2B). Interestingly, these taxonomists are of high academic rank:
Figure 2B). Interestingly, these taxonomists are of high academic rank: professors (32%), professors
(32%), associate
associate professors
professors (21%), and(21%),
PhDand PhD graduates
graduates (26%;2C)
(26%; Figure Figure
who 2C) who are
are mostly mostly
affiliated
affiliated
with with universities
universities (68%) orinstitutions
(68%) or research research institutions
(32%; Figure (32%;
2D).Figure 2D).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Summary
Summary of of demographic
demographic structure
structure of
of population
population of
of taxonomists
taxonomists whowho took
took part
part in
in this
this
study. Dr = doctor; Ass-Prof. = associate professor; Prof. = professor; Res. Inst = research institu-
study. Dr = doctor; Ass-Prof. = associate professor; Prof. = professor; Res. Inst = research institutions.
tions.
3.1.2. Taxonomic Activities
The results of the analysis of the data collected through questionnaires show that
taxonomists in South Africa are very active. In terms of publications, some have pub-
lished over 200 papers in taxonomy, others have published 50–80 papers, and many have
published 20–50 papers (Figure 3).
Furthermore, taxonomists in South Africa work on almost all biome types found in
the country (Figure 4A). Fynbos and Grasslands were the most cited biomes of interest
for taxonomists, followed by Savannah and Nama Karoo. However, no one published
taxonomic research on Indian Ocean Coastal Belt and Desert. Most of the taxonomists have
accumulated 10–20 years of experience in taxonomy (42%), whereas some taxonomists
have accumulated 20–30 years of experience (37%) and a low percentage over 30 years
(Figure 4B). In terms of species description, most taxonomists have described 1–10 species
(55%), some have described 10–20 species (22%), and 6% of the taxonomists have described
more than 90 species in their career (Figure 4C).
 Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

3.1.2. Taxonomic Activities

The results of the analysis of the data collected through questionnaires show that
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 taxonomists in South Africa are very active. In terms of publications, some have pub- 7 of 15
lished over 200 papers in taxonomy, others have published 50–80 papers, and many have
published 20–50 papers (Figure 3).

Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Figure
Figure 3. Distribution
3. Distribution of taxonomists
of taxonomists according
according to taxonomicto taxonomic
papers papers
published. published.

Furthermore, taxonomists in South Africa work on almost all biome types found in
the country (Figure 4A). Fynbos and Grasslands were the most cited biomes of interest
for taxonomists, followed by Savannah and Nama Karoo. However, no one published
taxonomic research on Indian Ocean Coastal Belt and Desert. Most of the taxonomists
have accumulated 10–20 years of experience in taxonomy (42%), whereas some taxono-
mists have accumulated 20–30 years of experience (37%) and a low percentage over 30
years (Figure 4B). In terms of species description, most taxonomists have described 1–10
species (55%), some have described 10–20 species (22%), and 6% of the taxonomists have
described more than 90 species in their career (Figure 4C).

Summaryofoftaxonomic
Figure4.4.Summary
Figure taxonomicactivities
activitiesof
ofplant
plantexperts
expertsin
inSouth
SouthAfrica.
Africa.

3.2. Prediction of the Richness of Potentially Unknown Species

3.2. Prediction of the Richness of Potentially Unknown Species
This number was predicted in two ways: experts’ opinions and statistical modeling.
This number was predicted in two ways: experts’ opinions and statistical modeling.
According to experts’ opinions, the number of missing species varies between 100 and 3000
According to experts’ opinions, the number of missing species varies between 100 and
(Figure 4D). The average of all experts’ predictions is 1400 species.
3000 (Figure 4D). The average of all experts’ predictions is 1400 species.
Prior to statistical modeling, we first showed that the 11,208 species in our dataset
Prior to statistical modeling, we first showed that the 11,208 species in our dataset
have been described in a very inconsistent way over the 323 years (Figure 5) that it took for
have been described in a very inconsistent way over the 323 years (Figure 5) that it took
those species to be described.
for those species to be described.
 This number was predicted in two ways: experts’ opinions and statistical modeling
According to experts’ opinions, the number of missing species varies between 100 and
3000 (Figure 4D). The average of all experts’ predictions is 1400 species.
Prior to statistical modeling, we first showed that the 11,208 species in our datase
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 have been described in a very inconsistent way over the 323 years (Figure 5) 8 ofthat
15 it took
for those species to be described.

Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Figure5.5.Change
Figure Changeinin
number of native
number plantplant
of native species described
species over time
described in time
over SouthinAfrica.
South Africa.
Thismeans
This means that,
that, on on average,
average, 35 species
35 species are annually
are annually described.
described. The GARCH The GARCH
model model
predictsthat
predicts thatititwould
wouldtaketake4545years
yearsforforallallremaining
remaining species
species in in South
South Africa
Africa to be
to be de-described
(Figure(Figure
scribed 6). This 6).implies that, that,
This implies if theifcurrent
the current description rate
description is is
rate maintained
maintained(35 (35species/year),
spe-
cies/year),
in those 45 in those
years,451575
years,species
1575 species
would wouldhavehave been
been described(i.e.,
described (i.e., it
it remains
remainspo-
potentially
tentially 1575 species still to be
1575 species still to be described). described).

Figure
Figure6.6.Prediction
Predictionof of
trend in number
trend of species
in number to be described
of species over time
to be described in South
over Africa.
time in SouthThis
Africa. This
prediction was carried out by fitting GARCH model to the number of South Africa’s native species
prediction was carried out by fitting GARCH model to the number of South Africa’s native species
described from 1696 to 2019. Red line corresponds to prediction of how the number of species to be
described would be changing over the next 150 years. Vertical dashed bold line indicates number of
years in which the number of species to be described would be 0, meaning that total number of
species in the country would have been described. On the figure, this number corresponds to 45
years. Clearly, after 45 years, the number of species to be described (red line) does not change
anymore, implying after 45 years the total number of species in the country would have been de-
scribed. Horizontal bold dashed line shows the 0 value on the Y axis. The dotted lines indicate
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 9 of 15

described from 1696 to 2019. Red line corresponds to prediction of how the number of species to be
described would be changing over the next 150 years. Vertical dashed bold line indicates number of
years in which the number of species to be described would be 0, meaning that total number of species
in the country would have been described. On the figure, this number corresponds to 45 years. Clearly,
after 45 years, the number of species to be described (red line) does not change anymore, implying
after 45 years the total number of species in the country would have been described. Horizontal bold
dashed line shows the 0 value on the Y axis. The dotted lines indicate confidence intervals.

3.3. Efforts Required for a Comprehensive Plant Diversity Assessment

Taking into consideration the fact that, in the past 323 years, 11,208 species have been
described, implying a description rate of 35 species per year on average, it would take
45 years to describe the remaining 1575 species. This timeframe would be reduced to
40 years to describe the 1400 species predicted as unknown by experts.
According to the results obtained from experts in this study, taxonomists have spent a
total of ZAR 680,670,000 (USD 40,039,411) to describe 419 species. This implies that, in theory,
ZAR 1,624,510.74 (USD 95,559) was spent, on average, to describe 1 species. At this rate,
ZAR 2,558,604,415.00 (USD 150,506,142) would be required to describe
Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW the 1575 (modeling)
10 of 16
remaining species or ZAR 2,274,315,036.00 (USD 133,783,237) for the 1400 (expert) remaining
species. Since this estimated fund is not solely used for taxonomic studies, we applied the
(expert)
estimatedremaining species. Since
15% reported this estimated
elsewhere fund is not
as the portion solely
used forused for taxonomic
taxonomic studies: this means that
studies, we applied the estimated 15% reported elsewhere as the portion
approximately ZAR 243,673 (USD 14,334) is used on average for 1 species used for taxo- description.
nomic studies: this means that approximately ZAR 243,673 (USD 14,334) is used on av-
erage for 1 species description.
3.4. Number of Taxonomists Required for a Comprehensive Plant Taxonomic Assessment
3.4. Number
In theof data
Taxonomists Required
collected usingfor athe
Comprehensive Plant Taxonomic
questionnaire, Assessment
19 taxonomists have described 419 species
In the
during datacareers;
their collectedthis
using the questionnaire,
means that 64 or 71 19taxonomists
taxonomists have described
would 419
be required to describe the
species during their
1400 species careers;
(expert this means
opinion) or 1575that species
64 or 71 taxonomists
(modeling)would be required
remaining to betodescribed in South
describe the 1400 species (expert opinion) or 1575 species (modeling) remaining to be
Africa, respectively. However, the data collected from IPNI indicate that 2239 taxonomists
described in South Africa, respectively. However, the data collected from IPNI indicate
have2239
that described the 11,208
taxonomists native species
have described in South
the 11,208 Africa. inThe
native species number
South Africa.ofThe
authors who did this
massiveofspecies
number description
authors who has tremendously
did this massive changed
species description over time (Figure
has tremendously changed 7). The number first
over time (Figure
increases until7). The number
around first increases
the year untilwhich
1920, after around it
thestarts
year 1920, after which
decreasing it today (Figure 7).
until
starts decreasing until today (Figure 7). At the rate of description, the description of the
At the rate of description, the description of the 1400 species (expert opinion) or 1575 species
1400 species (expert opinion) or 1575 species (modeling) that remain to be described
(modeling)
would requirethat
280 orremain to be described
315 taxonomists, would require 280 or 315 taxonomists, respectively.
respectively.

Figure
Figure7. 7. Changes
Changes in number
in number of who
of authors authors who
describe all describe all South
South Africa’s Africa’s
native species. native species.

4. Discussion
4.1. Population of Taxonomists Involved in This Study
This study highlighted an unequal representation of sex in plant taxonomy in South
Africa: 63% male and 37% female taxonomists. This inequality seems to be a global issue
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 10 of 15

4. Discussion
4.1. Population of Taxonomists Involved in This Study
This study highlighted an unequal representation of sex in plant taxonomy in South
Africa: 63% male and 37% female taxonomists. This inequality seems to be a global issue
in both plant and animal taxonomy [43]. This observation is too a reality in South Africa
given that 41% of the pool of taxonomists involved in the present study are women and
59% men (see also [44–47]). Fortunately, in South Africa, SANBI is committed to promoting
the employment priority of women over men as part of strategies to address the existing
sex inequality [48].
Apart from sex inequality, it seems that age representation is a global dilemma (South
Africa included). The vast majority of taxonomists in this study (68%) are categorized as of
middle age (40–60 years old), and 11% of currently active taxonomists are categorized as
reaching a maturity age (>60 years). This quick statistic implies that most of the current
active taxonomists in South Africa will be at the retirement age in 10 years. When this
happens, it will have negative implications on the plant taxonomic and conservation
activities unless plans are in place to mitigate the negative impacts of massive retirement of
experienced taxonomists. Our data revealed that there are only a few young taxonomists
(20%) already in the pipeline, and this shows that the future of plant taxonomy in South
Africa in the next 10–15 years may not be looking good.
Interestingly, this study, among others (e.g., [49]), showed that age does not necessarily
decrease publication activity. Specifically, the annual description rate of species during the
careers of the particularly prolific taxonomists shows high taxonomic activity during the
last 15 years of the career at the age of about 50–60 years [38,50]. Overall, the decreasing
number of professional taxonomists is a global challenge [51]. If proactive actions are not
taken, taxonomy will undoubtedly lose the battle of inventorying the diversity of life [52],
prompting Wägele et al., to refer to taxonomists as “an endangered race” [53].

4.2. Prediction of the Richness of Potentially Unknown Species in South Africa

According to the opinion of taxonomist experts, we might be missing 1400 species in
South Africa, whereas the modeling approach predicted that there are 1575 missing species.
However, irrespective of the approach used (expert opinions or modeling), the estimates
should be considered as conservative for the following reasons. Firstly, the present study
focused only on vascular plants, which means that the missing species would be higher
than predicted in the present study if nonvascular plants were included. Secondly, new
species that may arise from the needed taxonomic revisions of some genera are not factored
in the estimate. For example, Victor et al. [54] estimated that, on average, there might
be 2200 new species in South African plant genera that have not been revised since 1980,
particularly those with a predominantly small habit. Furthermore, the estimates reported
here do not include the molecular or DNA-sequences approach, which is known to increase
the discovery of new species [55,56], although an early study called for caution on the
tremendous increase in new species due to molecular data [57]. Overall, it is likely that the
remaining species (1400–1575 species predicted here) are rare species with narrow-ranged
geographic distributions [56], making them difficult to find. More efforts (manpower, funds,
time, etc.) than usual are therefore required if we are to comprehensively find, describe, and
catalogue the plant diversity in the country. Such efforts required qualified taxonomists,
which, unfortunately, are becoming rare owing to what Stroud et al. [58] recently referred
to as “the botanical education extinction and the fall of plant awareness”.

4.3. Estimate of Remaining Time for a Comprehensive Assessment of Plant Diversity

Our data suggest that, on average, 1.07 species are described in South Africa on an
annual basis. This rate of description implies that it would take 1308 years to describe all
the remaining 1400 (expert opinion) vascular plant species or 1472 years to describe the
remaining 1575 vascular plant species (modeling approach). This is scary given that the
risk that unknown species slide into extinction is very high [10,59,60]. However, the true
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 11 of 15

rate should be higher than 1.07 species/year given that all native species described are not
always carried out by taxonomists based in South Africa alone but through collaborations
with international taxonomists; however, our study involved only taxonomists based in
South Africa.
Globally, according to an early study, the rate of species loss is currently 1000 times
greater than the past rate, and if nothing is done, the rate may become 10,000 times
greater [61,62] due to climate change, anthropogenic pressure characterized by habitat loss,
pollution, and alien invasive species [16,63]. In a biosphere reserve in Canada, Elliot and
Davies [64] reported the loss of 70 different species in only 50 years, suggesting the need to
accelerate efforts toward a comprehensive assessment of biodiversity before its extinction.
Specifically, in South Africa, 20% of all endemic plant species (2165) are at high risk of
extinction, and the risk status of 8% (902 species) is still unknown due to lack of taxonomic
and ecological information [65]. Even protected areas that are supposed to prevent the loss
of species seem to be performing poorer than expected, given that 163 threatened species
in South Africa occur outside all protected areas [65]. This pattern of extinction risk and
limited effectiveness of protected areas [65] mean that we cannot afford to take longer time
than we have already taken before serious efforts and commitments are made to identify
and describe all unknown species in the country before they go extinct.
Interestingly, this long duration of more than 1000 years can be drastically reduced
to only 40 to 45 years to identify the remaining unknown species. These 40–45 years
would be required if we consider the rate of 35 species annually described (from IPNI
source, 11,208 species native to South Africa were described in 323 years). For this to
happen, massive efforts have to be deployed in training [58], funding, and recruitment of
taxonomists who will be exclusively devoted to taxonomic activities. It is also important
that such taxonomic activities be focused on poorly sampled biomes, e.g., Nama Karoo and
Savannah biomes [66] and Indian Ocean Coastal Belt biome. Only such focused activities
could accelerate species discoveries and descriptions [67]. Such efforts should be global
if we are to considerably reduce the unaffordable timeframe (1200 years) predicted for a
global assessment of biodiversity (see [3]).

4.4. Funds Required for a Comprehensive Taxonomic Plant Diversity Assessment

According to the results obtained from experts in this study, taxonomists have spent
a total of ZAR 680,670,000 (USD 40,039,411) to describe 419 species. This implies that,
in theory, ZAR 1,624,510.74 (USD 95,559) was spent, on average, to describe 1 species.
At this rate, ZAR 2,558,604,415.00 (USD 150,506,142) would be required to describe the
1575 (modeling) remaining species or ZAR 2,274,315,036.00 (USD 133,783,237) for the 1400
(expert) remaining species. On these estimates, it is important to note the following.
First, our estimated funds are not exclusively for those spent on taxonomic activities
since most of the respondents to our questionnaire are not full-time taxonomists; they
are mostly primarily academics, and as such, the funding reported includes funding to
run their laboratories, to cover student scholarships, and even for activities that may not
be strictly taxonomy-related [42]. For example, in Brazil (animal taxonomists), 15% of
the funding secured is allocated for taxonomist training, 50% for the salaries of full-time
taxonomists in scientific institutions, and only 15% for the taxonomic project itself [42].
If this 15% is applied to South Africa’s case (15% of ZAR 1,624,510.74), it means that we
should expect ZAR 243,677 to be exclusively spent for a species description.
However, if taxonomic activities are to be led in majority by academic taxonomists, the
estimates reported in the present study (ZAR 1,624,510.74 per species) could be considered
a true reflection of what would be needed. This is because academic taxonomists cannot be
detached from their other academic duties, which also need to be concomitantly funded
with their taxonomic works. One major issue raised by the respondents is that it is very
difficult nowadays to obtain funding exclusively for taxonomic studies, and this seems
to be a global issue [43] in comparison with activities that primarily focus on ecological
and conservation studies. This is surprising since it is impossible to effectively conserve
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 12 of 15

biodiversity and related ecosystem services [61] if we do not know the extent of what needs
to be conserved.
One possible solution to this general lack of funding for exclusive taxonomic projects is
for South Africa to establish, through SANBI, an exclusive taxonomic funding for training,
targeted botanical expeditions, and incentive for taxonomic studies. Another solution
would be to promote full-time taxonomists in research institutions, e.g., SANBI, to comple-
ment what academic taxonomists are currently doing to accelerate biodiversity assessment
in the country. This would considerably reduce the funding required for taxonomic works.
This reduction could even be more pronounced given the increased number of amateur
taxonomists, molecular identification tools, increased international collaborations, and
access to new areas of exploration [3].

4.5. Number of Taxonomists Required for a Comprehensive Plant Taxonomic Assessment

In the results obtained through a survey of expert taxonomists in South Africa, 19 tax-
onomists have described 419 species during their careers. This gives an average rate of 22.05
species per taxonomist, which is not far off from the Brazil rate of 24.8 species described
per taxonomist [42]. The South African rate of species description is quite impressive
considering that the Brazil description rate is for animals. It is easier to describe animals
than plants mainly because of their difference in size. Applying the South African rate
of description, 64 taxonomists would be required to describe the 1400 (expert) species.
To describe 1575 species (modeling), 74 taxonomists would be needed. South Africa has
over 10 university institutions that offer taxonomy as a field of study. However, 64 to
74 taxonomists seem to be a very low number especially because the missing species are
rare and will be difficult to find.
The data collected from the IPNI indicate that 2239 taxonomists have described 11,208
species native to South Africa. Using the rate of description from the data from the IPNI,
our model predicted that it would require 315 taxonomists to describe 1575 (modeling)
species. Applying this rate to the 1400 (expert) species, it would require 280 taxonomists.
The number of taxonomists predicted from the model seems to be more realistic compared
with what the questionnaire survey suggested.
Unfortunately, there has been a shift from a balance between basic and applied research
to a strong focus on revenue-generating science in the past few decades, with governments
rarely allocating up to 30% of their research budgets to basic science [68,69]. This has
particularly affected taxonomy [49,70]). Globally, the classic paid position of a full-time
taxonomist practically does not exist anymore, and institutions that still maintain such slots
are likely waiting for their personnel to retire [71].
Overall, there might be +/− 1500 species to be found in South Africa. The present
study provides estimates of what it might take to advance toward a comprehensive plant
diversity assessment in the country. To move toward a comprehensive assessment, Carbayo
and Marques [42] suggested that “the most essential action now would be a concerted
effort to raise the image of taxonomy from being seen merely as an ‘old’ and ‘simple’ task
of biologists that is unfashionable and horribly constricted to low-impact-factor journals
to being viewed instead as a fundamental, indispensable, and vibrant branch of the life
sciences”.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d14090748/s1, Table S1. All data collected through questionnaire;
Table S2. Time series data on number of species described and number of authors who did the
description (1696–2019); Questionnaire; R script; Ethics approval.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.Y.; methodology, K.Y.; validation, K.Y. and A.M.; formal
analysis, K.Y.; investigation, K.Y., M.P.M. and A.M.; resources, K.Y. and A.M.; data curation, M.P.M.;
writing—original draft preparation, K.Y. and M.P.M.; writing—review and editing, K.Y. and A.M.;
visualization, K.Y.; supervision, K.Y. and A.M.; project administration, K.Y.; funding acquisition,
M.P.M. and K.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 13 of 15

Funding: This research was funded by the National Research Foundation granted to K.Y. (grant #
146104).
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of
Johannesburg at a meeting held on 4 March 2020 (evidence submitted as supplemental information).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data analyzed are submitted as supplemental information.
Acknowledgments: We thank all those colleagues who responded to our questionnaires. We also thank
three anonymous reviewers who contributed to the improvement of an initial draft of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. May, R.M. How many species are there on earth? Science 1988, 241, 1441–1449. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 2nd ed.; Smithsonian Institution
Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
3. Mora, C.; Derek, P.; Tittensor, S.A.; Alastair, G.B.; Simpson, B.; Boris, W. How many species are there on earth and in the ocean?
PloS Biol. 2011, 9, 1001127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Larsen, B.B.; Miller, E.C.; Rhodes, M.K.; Wiens, J.J. Inordinate fondness multiplied and redistributed the number of species on
earth and the new pie of life. Q. Rev. Biol. 2017, 92, 229–265. [CrossRef]
5. Wilson, D.S. Complex interactions in metacommunities, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology
1992, 73, 1984–2000. [CrossRef]
6. Roskov, Y.; Kunze, T.; Paglinawan, L.; Orrell, T.; Nicolson, D.; Culham, A.; Bailly, N.; Kirk, P.; Bourgoin, T.; Baillargeon, G.; et al.
Available online: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2014/info/ac (accessed on 1 January 2021).
7. Ehrlich, P.R. Biodiversity studies: Science and policy. Science 1991, 253, 758–762. [CrossRef]
8. Gaston, K.; May, R. Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 1992, 356, 281–282. [CrossRef]
9. Lambshead, P.J.D. Recent developments in marine benthic biodiversity research. Océanis 1993, 19, 5–24.
10. Costello, M.J.; Wilson, S.; Houlding, B. Predicting total global species richness using rates of species description and estimates of
taxonomic effort. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61, 871. [CrossRef]
11. Locey, K.J.; Lennon, J.T. Scaling laws predict global microbial diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 5970–5975. [CrossRef]
12. Mace GNorris, K.; Fitter, A. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 19–26.
[CrossRef]
13. Sarukhán, J.; Whyte, A.; Hassan, R.; Scholes, R.; Ash, N.; Carpenter, S.T.; Pingali, P.L.; Bennett, E.M.; Zurek, M.B.; Chopra, K.; et al.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
14. Daily, G.C.; Matson, P.A. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9455–9456.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Mace, G.; Revenga, C.; Ken, B. Biodiversity, in Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends; Ceballos, G., Orians, G.,
Pacala, S.L., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Volume 4, pp. 77–121.
16. Barnosky, A.D.; Matzke, N.; Tomiya, S.; Wogan, G.O.; Swartz, B.; Quental, T.B.; Marshall, C.; McGuire, J.L.; Lindsey, E.L.; Maguire,
K.C.; et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 2011, 471, 51–57. [CrossRef]
17. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Barnosky, A.D.; García, A.; Pringle, R.M.; Palmer, T.M. Accelerated modern human–induced species
losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1400253. [CrossRef]
18. Steadman, D.W. Extinction and Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006.
19. Hughes, B.J.; Daily, C.G.; Ehrlich, P.R. Population diversity: Its extent and extinction. Science 1997, 278, 689–692. [CrossRef]
20. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2014). 2014. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on
11 March 2019).
21. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R. The misunderstood sixth mass extinction. Science 2018, 360, 1080–1081. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Davies, T.J.; Smith, G.F.; Bellstedt, D.U.; Boatwright, J.S.; Bytebier, B. Extinction Risk and Diversification are Linked in a Plant
Biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9, e1000620. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Polidoro, B.A.; Carpenter, K.E.; Collins, L.; Duke, N.C.; Ellison, A.M.; Ellison, J.C.; Farnsworth, E.J.; Fernando, E.S.; Kathiresan, K.;
Koedam, N.E.; et al. The loss of species: Mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern. PLoS ONE 2010, 5,
10095. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Dirzo, R.; Raven, P. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2003, 28, 137–167. [CrossRef]
25. Ceballos, G.; Garcia, A.; Ehrlich, P.R. The sixth extinction crisis: Loss of animal populations and species. J. Cosmol. 2010, 8, 31.
26. Álvarez-Presas, M.; Carbayo, F.; Rozas, J.; Riutort, M. Land planarians (Platyhelminthes) as a model organism for fine-scale
phylogeographic studies: Understanding patterns of biodiversity in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest hotspot. J. Evol. Biol. 2011, 24,
887–896. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 14 of 15

27. Rouget, M.; Reyers, B.; Jonas, Z.; Desmet, P.; Driver, A.; Maze, K.; Egoh, B.; Cowling, R.M. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment
2004, Technical Report Volume 1: Terrestrial Component; South African National Biodiversity Institute: Pretoria, South Africa, 2004.
28. SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute. National Biodiversity Monitoring & Reporting Framework; SANBI: Silverton,
South Africa, 2007.
29. Rutherford, M.; Mucina, L.; Powrie, L. Biomes and Bioregions of Southern Africa. In The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland; SANBI: Silverton, South Africa, 2006.
30. Cox, R.L.; Underwood, E. C The importance of conserving biodiversity outside of protected areas in Mediterranean ecosystems.
PLoS ONE 2011, 6, 0014508.
31. Driver, A.; Maze, K.; Rouget, M.; Lombard, A.T.; Nel, J.; Turpie, J.K.; Cowling, R.M.; Desmet, P.; Goodman, P.; Harris, J.; et al.
National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa; SANBI: Silverton, South Africa,
2005.
32. Victor, J.E.; Smith, G.F.; Van Wyk, A.E.V. History and drivers of plant taxonomy in South Africa. Phytotaxa 2016, 269, 193.
[CrossRef]
33. RSA (Republic of South Africa). Geography and Climate. 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.za/about-sa/geography-and-
climate (accessed on 1 June 2022).
34. Rodda, S.N.; Stenström, T.A.; Schmidt, S.; Dent, M.; Bux, F.; Hanke, N.; Buckley, C.A.; Fennemore, C. Water security in South
Africa: Perceptions on public expectation and municipal obligations, governance and water re-use. Water SA 2016, 42, 456–465.
35. Tyson, P.D.; Preston-Whyte, R.A. Weather and Climate of Southern Africa; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000.
36. Bezeng, B.S.; Yessoufou, K.; Taylor, P.J.; Tesfamichael, S.G. Expected spatial patterns of alien woody plants in South Africa’s
protected areas under current scenario of climate change. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Germishuizen, G.; Meyer, N.L.; Steenkamp, Y.; Keith, M. A checklist of south African plants. In Southern African Botanical Diversity
Network Report; SABONET: Pretoria, South Africa, 2006.
38. Victor, J.; Smith, G.; Van Wyk, A.; Ribeiro, S. Plant taxonomic capacity in South Africa. Phytotaxa 2015, 238, 149. [CrossRef]
39. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing:
Vienna, Austria, 2019.
40. Dickey, D.A.; Fuller, W.A. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1979, 74,
427–431.
41. Engle, R. Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity With Estimates of the Variance of U.K. Inflation. Econometrica 1982, 50,
987–1008. [CrossRef]
42. Carbayo, F.; Marques, A.C. The costs of describing the entire animal kingdom. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26, 154–155. [CrossRef]
43. Morgan, D.J. Gender issues in taxonomy: More than just Latin. 2015. Available online: http://www.biodiversityinfocus.com/
blog/2015/05/07/gender-issues-in-taxonomy-more-than-just-latin/ (accessed on 1 June 2022).
44. Huang, J.; Gates, A.J.; Sinatra, R.; Barabási, A.L. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries
and disciplines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 4609–4616. [CrossRef]
45. Zookeys2020. Available online: https://zookeys.pensoft.net/browse_journal_issues.php?journal_name=zookeys&journal_id=
2&p=2 (accessed on 1 November 2020).
46. Cho, H.A.; Schuman, C.; Jennifer, E.; Adler, M.; Gonzalez, O.; Graves, S.; Jana, J.; Huebner, R.; Marchant, D.B.; Rifai, S.; et al.
Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management.
Peer Rev. J. 2014, 2, e542. [CrossRef]
47. Lindon, H.L.; Gardiner, L.M.; Brady, A.; Vorontsova, M.S. Fewer than three percent of land plant species named by women:
Author gender over 260 years. Taxon 2015, 64, 209–215. [CrossRef]
48. SANBI. Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Policy Advice Assessment. 2020. Available online: http://opus.sanbi.org/bitstream/20
.500.12143/6990/1/Biodiversity%20mainstreaming%20assessment%20with%20annexures.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2021).
49. Drew, L.W. Are We Losing the Science of Taxonomy? As need grows, numbers and training are failing to keep up. Biol. Sci. 2011,
61, 942–946.
50. Coleman, C.O. Taxonomy in times of the taxonomic impediment–examples from the community of experts on amphipod
crustaceans. J. Crustacean Biol. 2015, 35, 729–740. [CrossRef]
51. Britz, R.; Hundsdorfer, A.; Fritz, U. Funding, training, permits—The three big challenges of taxonomy. Megataxa 2020, 1, 49–52.
[CrossRef]
52. Pyke, G.H.; Ehrlich, P.R. Biological collections and ecological/environmental research: A review, some observations and a look to
the future. Biol. Rev. 2010, 85, 247–266. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Wägele, H.; Klussmann-Kolb, A.; Kuhlmann, M.; Haszprunar, G.; Lindberg, D.; Koch, A.; Wägele, J.W. The taxonomist—An
endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival. Front. Zool. 2011, 8, 25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Victor, J.E.; Smith, G.; Van Wyk, A.E.V. Strategy for Plant Taxonomic Research in South Africa 2015–2020. SANBI Biodiversity Series;
South African National Biodiversity Institute: Pretoria, South Africa, 2015.
55. Hebert, P.D.N.; Cywinska, A.; Ball, S.L.; deWaard, J.R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. 2003,
270, 313–322. [CrossRef]
56. Cao, X.; Liu, J.; Chen, J.; Zheng, G.; Kuntner, M.; Agnarsson, I. Rapid dissemination of taxonomic discoveries based on DNA
barcoding and morphology. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–13. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2022, 14, 748 15 of 15

57. Meiri, S.; Mace, G.M. New taxonomy and the origin of species. Public Libr. Sci. Biol. 2007, 5, 194. [CrossRef]
58. Stroud, S.; Fennell, M.; Mitchley, J.; Lydon, S.; Peacock, J.; Bacon, K.L. The botanical education extinction and the fall of plant
Awareness. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9019. [CrossRef]
59. Edwards, D.P.; Laurance, W.F. Biodiversity despite selective logging. Science 2013, 339, 646–647. [CrossRef]
60. Mora, C.; Caldwell, I.R.; Caldwell, J.M.; Fisher, M.R.; Genco, B.M.; Running, S.W. Disappearing suitable days for plant growth
under projected climate change and potential human and biotic vulnerability. Public Libr. Sci. Biol. 2015, 13, 1002167.
61. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human well-being: Wetlands and water Synthesis; World Resources Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
62. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population
losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 6089–6096. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Davies, T.J. The macroecology and macroevolution of plant species at risk. New Phytol. 2019, 222, 708–713. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Elliott, T.L.; Davies, T.J. Phylogenetic attributes, conservation status and geographical origin of species gained and lost over 50
years in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 711–728. [CrossRef]
65. Hoveka, L.N.; van der Bank, M.; Bezeng, B.S.; Davies, T.J. Identifying biodiversity knowledge gaps for conserving South Africa’s
endemic flora. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 1–17. [CrossRef]
66. Hoveka, L.N.; van der Bank, M.; Davies, T.J. Evaluating the performance of a protected area network in South Africa and its
implications for megadiverse countries. Biol. Conser. 2020, 248, 108577. [CrossRef]
67. Joppa, L.N.; Roberts, D.L.; Pimm, S.L. How many species of flowering plants are there? Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 278, 554–559.
[CrossRef]
68. Nelson, R.R. The simple economics of basic scientific research. J. Political Econ. 1959, 67, 297–306. [CrossRef]
69. Hutchings, P. Why are taxonomists often regarded as second class citizens? a misclassification that threatens the basic infrastruc-
ture of biodiversity. In Grumpy Scientists: The Ecological Conscience of a Nation; Lunney, D., Hutchings, P., Recher, H.F., Eds.; Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales: Mosman, NSW, Australia, 2013; pp. 26–30.
70. UNESCO. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/taxonomy/term/199 (accessed on 30 November 2019).
71. Lucking, R. Three challenges to contemporaneous taxonomy from a licheno-mycological perspective. Megataxa 2020, 1, 78–103.
[CrossRef]