Frequently Asked Questions
Also consider visiting our Decision Tree as a way to explore which article type might meet your goals.
Also consider visiting our Decision Tree as a way to explore which article type might meet your goals.
The distinction between lost and extinct is a matter of time and certainty. Knowing that a species is extinct, never to be seen again, will, in most cases, require decades of searching before scientists and naturalists agree. In contrast, being “lost” means that a species has not been found in recent years. A threshold of 10 years without positive records of a species in the wild has been suggested, and we support that suggestion but also encourage authors to adapt the threshold to the situation and the organism. For example, a lower threshold for the number of years might be appropriate for a conspicuous species or a species where search effort has been intense. In all cases, it is useful to remember that the designation of lost is a kind of hypothesis, subject to change with additional information, which is of course why we have Rediscoveries as one of our article types.
Amount of search effort is not explicitly considered in the definition of lost species, which simply means that a species has not been documented in the wild within the last decade (Long & Rodríguez 2022; full citation below). The documentation of search effort is of course valuable, and more search effort without a positive observation will generate greater confidence that a lost species might be at risk of extinction (or, extinct) and add urgency to the description of a species as lost.
Long, B. and Rodríguez, J.P., 2022. Lost but not forgotten: a new nomenclature to support a call to rediscover and conserve lost species. Oryx, 56(4), pp.481-482.
There are of course a great many species and lineages for which information on geographic range and occurrence is extremely limited, including but not limited to insects, many groups of fungi, and most microscopic organisms. However, even for groups with extremely limited information, it is important to keep in mind that the definition of a lost species is one for which no records are available during the last decade, either in digitized databases, the published literature, or museum records. Thus there will be many groups of cryptic or poorly-studied organisms for which a substantial fraction of species deserve to be considered lost, by definition, because we do not know where they are, and the review of available evidence for such a group of species should be published as Report. It is also the case that variation in evidence can be considered while reporting on lost species within data-poor groups, such that lost status for species that are known to be the subjects of field search efforts might carry more weight than for species that are rarely looked for.
Publications in JLS can be about any named taxon, which includes species, subspecies, varieties, etc. In contrast, the loss of populations (extirpation) is in principle a natural part of meta-population dynamics. There may be situations in which an un-named but ecologically significant or morphologically distinct suite of populations is lost, and this can be considered; if in doubt, contact us with questions. What about the loss of single populations or groups of populations that are not necessarily morphologically or ecologically distinct? The loss of such populations can also be indicative of range-wide decline, and in this context might be appropriate for an Alert article.
We appreciate of course the challenge posed by the vast numbers of undescribed species, and there will likely be cases in which a species has been documented (and lost) but not formally described. With sufficient documentation, such cases can be subjects of Alerts and Reports.
As with any scientific article, we only ask that authors are clear about the taxonomic authorities they are following, and provide sufficient information and citations that readers will not be in doubt about the lost or extinct taxa in question.
Reports include the most thorough evidence that a species should be considered lost, including evidence that a species has not been seen in the wild for approximately 10 years. Alerts, by contrast, involve more uncertainty, and may include cases where data is less systematic or less thorough. Thus, Alerts (as the name implies) raise alarms and potentially help to motivate search effort. Alerts might also be appropriate in cases where loss is well documented locally or regionally, but not globally.
Reports are necessarily about global (range wide) losses, but there are cases in which Alerts could involve the documentation of regional or local loss, if those losses indicate the danger of global extinction.
The difference between Synopses and the other two article types is a matter of historical context and accumulation of evidence. Synopses should bring together evidence on relatively well-documented extinctions for a lineage (e.g., bats, or longhorn beetles), with the idea of setting a baseline for future Reports and Alerts. Information on the extinctions reviewed in a Synopsis will likely have been published elsewhere, although not in a single article, and will be relatively well-known to the community of biologists and naturalists interested in that lineage. It is important to note that Synopses, although more historical than Alerts and Reports, are still focused on Anthropocene extinctions (see next question).
JLS is interested in lost species from the modern era dominated by human influence of the earth, also known as the Anthropocene. There are differing opinions on what date should be considered the start of the era, with propositions ranging from the Neolithic Revolution (in the range of 12 - 15,000 years ago), the Industrial Revolution (the year 1800), or the middle of the 20th century, among other dates. Because this is an evolving field, we want to allow flexibility in this issue, and allow authors to consider dates of human impact that are most relevant to different organisms. This issue will be most important for Synopses which bring together key evidence on historical, Anthropocene extinctions, as a baseline for incoming and future Reports and Alerts on more recent losses.
Both are of interest, in all cases focusing on Anthropocene or contemporary extinctions, not extinctions from the paleontological record. The Synopsis article type should be used to gather information on relatively well-documented extinctions, instances for which rediscovery is unlikely, while Reports and Alerts involve more recent losses. Synopses are important because they represent essential baseline information and provide context for future Reports and Alerts.
This is of course the best possible outcome, and we hope that the information published in Alerts and Reports motivates and facilitates search efforts that lead to this outcome, for which JLS has a dedicated article type: Rediscoveries.
Yes, and we encourage authors to submit these types of articles, as well as opinion pieces or literature reviews, as Letters. We recognize that authors have many venues for these more traditional types of articles, but hope that JLS will be a productive place for these papers as well as the article types that are unique to JLS (Reports, Alerts and Synopses). For articles on biodiversity decline, we also ask that authors present the results within the context of lost or potentially lost species, such that future studies might use the published information as a baseline for tracking the fate of individual species.