  Classifications and phylogenetic inferences of organismal groups change in
light of new insights. Over time these changes can result in an imperfect
tracking of taxonomic perspectives through the re-/use of Code-compliant or
informal names. To mitigate these limitations, we introduce a novel approach
for aligning taxonomies through the interaction of human experts and logic
reasoners. We explore the performance of this approach with the Perelleschus
use case of Franz & Cardona-Duque (2013). The use case includes six taxonomies
published from 1936 to 2013, 54 taxonomic concepts (i.e., circumscriptions of
names individuated according to their respective source publications), and 75
expert-asserted Region Connection Calculus articulations (e.g., congruence,
proper inclusion, overlap, or exclusion). An Open Source reasoning toolkit is
used to analyze 13 paired Perelleschus taxonomy alignments under heterogeneous
constraints and interpretations. The reasoning workflow optimizes the logical
consistency and expressiveness of the input and infers the set of maximally
informative relations among the entailed taxonomic concepts. The latter are
then used to produce merge visualizations that represent all congruent and
non-congruent taxonomic elements among the aligned input trees. In this small
use case with 6-53 input concepts per alignment, the information gained through
the reasoning process is on average one order of magnitude greater than in the
input. The approach offers scalable solutions for tracking provenance among
succeeding taxonomic perspectives that may have differential biases in naming
conventions, phylogenetic resolution, ingroup and outgroup sampling, or
ostensive (member-referencing) versus intensional (property-referencing)
concepts and articulations.
