Introduction: A Stark Imbalance in Biodiversity Science
In a world where biodiversity is increasingly recognized as a global heritage, the physical custody of scientific specimens tells a story of power and inequality. A recent study by Brazilian researchers, published in the journal npj Biodiversity, has brought to light a troubling trend: most new mammal species discovered in the Global South over the past 35 years end up in collections in the Global North. The study, which analyzed 1,116 new mammal species described between 1990 and 2025, reveals that while 95% of these species are native to the Global South, 60% of their holotypes—the reference specimens that define the species—are housed in institutions in wealthy countries in Europe and North America.
This disparity is not merely a matter of geography; it has profound implications for scientific access, capacity building, and the equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity research. The findings underscore how historical and ongoing geopolitical and socioeconomic inequalities shape the very fabric of scientific knowledge.
The Global South: A Hotspot of Mammal Diversity
The Global South—comprising emerging countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean—is a treasure trove of mammal diversity. According to the study, the vast majority of new mammal species described in recent decades are native to these regions. Countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Peru are among the most biodiverse, yet they often lack the resources and infrastructure to house the specimens that document their natural heritage.
The study's authors, from Brazilian institutions, highlight that this pattern is not new but has persisted and even intensified. "The mammal figures surprised us," they note, especially when compared to other taxonomic groups. For instance, freshwater fish described after 2000 have 30% of their holotypes outside their country of origin, and reptiles described after 1990 have 50% outside. Mammals, however, show a much sharper imbalance: more than 90% of all mammal holotypes stored in the Global North are specimens collected in a different country, while in the Global South, less than 8% of mammal holotypes are deposited in countries other than where they were collected.
The Northern Hold on Scientific Specimens
The concentration of holotypes in Northern institutions is a legacy of colonial-era collecting practices and ongoing disparities in research funding. Natural history museums in Europe and North America have historically been the epicenters of taxonomic research, with vast collections amassed during centuries of exploration. Today, these institutions continue to attract specimens from around the world, often through collaborations that, while scientifically valuable, can perpetuate dependencies.
The study reveals that 60% of mammal holotypes from the Global South are housed primarily in wealthy countries, while only 22% of species native to the North have their holotypes stored outside their country of origin—and even then, within the same geopolitical domain, such as Australia or New Zealand. This asymmetry means that scientists from the Global South often have to travel abroad to study the very species found in their own backyards, incurring significant costs and logistical challenges.
Implications for Scientific Capacity and Access
The physical location of holotypes is not a trivial matter. Holotypes are the reference specimens used to define a species, and access to them is essential for taxonomic research, conservation planning, and education. When holotypes are stored far from their countries of origin, it hampers local scientists' ability to study their own biodiversity. This can lead to a 'brain drain' in taxonomy, as researchers may need to relocate or repeatedly travel to Northern institutions to conduct their work.
Moreover, the lack of local collections undermines the development of taxonomic expertise in the Global South. As the authors point out, this imbalance reflects and reinforces geopolitical and socioeconomic inequalities. Countries that are rich in biodiversity but poor in resources are effectively exporting their natural heritage to the North, often without adequate returns in terms of capacity building or benefit sharing.
Comparison with Other Taxonomic Groups
The study's findings for mammals are particularly stark when compared to other groups. While the overall trend of Northern dominance exists across taxa, the degree varies. For freshwater fish, 30% of species described after 2000 have holotypes outside their country of origin, and for reptiles, 50% of species described after 1990 are housed outside the country of discovery. These figures, while still high, are lower than the 60% observed for mammals.
The authors suggest that the 'charisma' of mammals—their appeal to the public and funders—may paradoxically contribute to this imbalance. Mammals are often the focus of high-profile research and conservation efforts, which may attract international collaborations that result in specimens being deposited in Northern museums. Additionally, the larger body size of many mammals makes them more likely to be traded or collected for display, further concentrating them in major institutions.
Case Study: The Baturité Porcupine
One example that illustrates the issue is the Baturité porcupine (Coendou baturitensis), collected in the Serra de Baturité in Ceará state, Brazil, and described in 2013. The specimen, collected by Hugo Fernandes-Ferreira and described by Anderson Feijó and Alfredo Langguth, is a striking example of a species native to the Global South. While the study does not specify the location of this particular holotype, it serves as a reminder of the many species that are described based on specimens that may end up far from their natural habitat.
The porcupine's discovery highlights the importance of local research efforts, but also the challenges they face. Without adequate local collections, the scientific community in Brazil and other Global South countries must rely on international partnerships, which, while beneficial, can also perpetuate the flow of specimens northward.
Toward a More Equitable Future
The study's authors call for a rethinking of how scientific specimens are managed and shared. They suggest that international collaborations should include provisions for the repatriation of specimens or the establishment of local collections. Advances in digital technology, such as high-resolution imaging and 3D scanning, could also help mitigate the need for physical access, but these are not substitutes for the real specimens.
Moreover, funding agencies and scientific institutions in the Global North have a responsibility to support capacity building in the Global South. This could involve training local taxonomists, providing equipment and infrastructure, and ensuring that the benefits of research are shared equitably. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol provide frameworks for access and benefit-sharing, but their implementation remains uneven.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
The study is a wake-up call for the scientific community. It reveals that the physical location of knowledge is as important as its creation. As the world grapples with biodiversity loss and climate change, it is imperative that the countries most rich in biodiversity are empowered to study and protect their own species. The current imbalance, where the Global South provides the specimens and the Global North provides the storage, is not only unjust but also scientifically shortsighted.
By addressing these inequalities, we can foster a more collaborative and equitable global scientific enterprise—one where the guardians of biodiversity are also the stewards of its documentation. The authors hope that their findings will inspire policy changes and institutional reforms to ensure that the study of nature is as diverse and inclusive as nature itself.
This article is based on reporting by Phys.org. Read the original article.
Originally published on phys.org
