Response to Arbogast and Kerhoulas.

The article focuses on addressing criticisms of mammal species range maps published by Marsh et al. (2022), emphasizing the inherent limitations and expected inaccuracies of expert-drawn range maps and the challenges of using occurrence point data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) for their evaluation. It argues that the evaluation methods employed by Arbogast and Kerhoulas are flawed due to unfiltered use of biased occurrence data and inappropriate spatial analyses, demonstrating that over 99.5% of IUCN mammal range maps would be incorrectly flagged as inaccurate under their criteria. The authors highlight that range maps are static, non-reproducible products with varying precision and accuracy depending on species knowledge and spatial scale, recommending their use primarily at coarse spatial resolutions (>200 km) for biogeographical studies rather than local decision-making. To improve range map quality, the article promotes the use of the "Expert Range Mapper" online tool, which facilitates expert annotation and updates, acknowledging that taxonomic revisions and range changes require ongoing, manual expert input.