uBio & Free taxonomic information

[Una Smith]

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:55:23AM -0400, David Remsen wrote:
>Do you disagree, in principle, to our trying to address the problem
>from our library perspective?

Frankly, yes.  Taxonomy isn't just librarianship, or there
would be no problem here to solve.

>Do you recognize that we have a need and stake in the global
>taxonomic initiatives?

No.  You have won a pot of money, and you're pouring it down
the same drain that so many others have already used.


>Do you feel we should spend less on developing the technical
>infrastructure which does not exist to meet our needs and spend
>more on simply purchasing names for the data model?

Neither.  You assume the technical instructure you propose
*can* fix the problem;  I think most taxonomists here would
agree with me that your assumption is false, and that you
don't really understand the problem.

Taxonomic names change for a variety of reasons.  Some reasons
are trivial:  simple errors of nomenclature, and priority.
The *problem* is in the non-trivial reasons.  Primary among
these non-trivial reasons is:  evolving concepts of taxonomic
circumscription, which are equivalent to reticulate evolution.
Changes of circumscription result in lumping and/or splitting
taxa;  changed taxonomic names are mere side-effects of this.

If your infrastructure helps the user find all publications
that *might* apply to their taxon of interest, that would be
useful, but your product would be a library resource, not a
taxonomic one.  Any taxonomist worthy of the name knows how
to trace circumscriptions, and has already done so for the
taxa they study.  This is slow, painstaking work requiring
considerable research skill and a world-class library.  Hence,
it is expensive work.  To me, $5 per name seems cheap.

The only database tool I know of that even begins to support
this task in an adequate manner is Richard J. Pankhurst's
PANDORA.  It does so by allowing the user to record data and
publications linked to *individual specimens*.

Do you read journals such as TAXON or NOVON (appologies to the
non-botanists on TAXACOM)?  If you don't, or you do but don't
understand the articles, frankly, you have no business in this
business.


>Should we pay more taxonomists directly?

It appears you can't afford to.


>What is your opinion of the current suite of offerings of 'lists of
>lists' such as ITIS or the SP2000 annual checklist?  Do you object to
>their use within a system like our name server?

Yes.  These lists are utterly devoid of any information about
circumscription.  So for your stated purpose they are useless.

        Una Smith

Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS K-710, Los Alamos, NM  87545