bioRxiv2026
Interpreting variation in genes and traits across species requires understanding their evolutionary relationships. Taxonomic hierarchies provide a practical approximation of the tree of life, with the NCBI taxonomy linking this framework directly to public sequence data. Some named groups, however, are not evolutionary clades, and recognizing these exceptions requires knowledge scattered across the phylogenetics literature. Here we introduce TaxaAudit, a statistical model that identifies taxonomic groups whose monophyly is repeatedly contradicted by published phylogenies. The model accounts for background taxonomic conflict and the ability of each study's species sampling to expose non-monophyly. Applied to 5,865 molecular phylogenies from TimeTree, TaxaAudit flagged 516 NCBI taxa at family rank and below for significant recurrent contradiction of monophyly. Excluding these taxa's monophyly requirements improved the taxonomy's agreement with independent phylogenomic reference trees and phylogenies withheld from discovery. Flagged taxa were also 3.61 times as likely as matched controls to have their monophyly challenged in publications outside the discovery set. In tree-inference experiments, excluding these monophyly constraints improved agreement with reference phylogenies relative to enforcing the unmodified taxonomy. By identifying groups whose monophyly should not be assumed, TaxaAudit lets researchers draw on published phylogenetic knowledge without reviewing the specialist literature for every taxon. This supports broader use of the NCBI taxonomy as an evolutionary framework for biological comparisons.