Response to Arbogast and Kerhoulas

We welcome feedback on the range maps published in Marsh et al. (2022) where it constructively improves our knowledge on species distributions. Unfortunately, we are concerned that criticisms raised by Arbogast and Kerhoulas are steps backward, not forward, particularly as they did not access the original range map data of Marsh et al. (2022). We stress that evaluating range maps using Global Biodiversity Information Facility data without the necessary quality control and filtering will lead to flawed interpretations—using the same approach, an even greater proportion, >99.5%, of IUCN mammal range maps would fail to meet their expectations. We take this opportunity to highlight the fine-scale inaccuracies, scale limitations, and range map variance that are expected across all expert range map sources and that any researcher should consider during any analysis. Finally, we again announce the availability of an online tool for providing annotations and proposing adjustments to range maps, and suggest this as a more appropriate forum for constructively and transparently improving range maps.