[Taxacom] Digitizing Science Collections

Wed May 16 23:51:42 CDT 2012

but I am not using my opinion to make a definite conclusion (that the record is bogus), for that, as you rightly point out, would not be scientific. Rather I am using my opinion to?highlight that there could well be a problem with the record. That seems to me to be a perfectly good?use of?an "opinion"! Opinions can be very useful, for the right purposes...
?
Consider a medical analogy, diagnoses can seldom be straightforwardly derived from symptoms by objective protocols. That is why people prefer to go to experienced doctors, i.e., because their opinions are more likely to be correct, all other things being equal (which they never are, but that's not the point!)
?
Stephen

________________________________
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2012 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Digitizing Science Collections

More comments below.

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

John, perhaps you are trying to be disagreeable, perhaps not, but any rate: 
>?
>the situation here is entirely analogous to the Wikipedia Munididae/WoRMS issue. Sometimes, there is no absolute objective proof that something is incorrect, but by stating it without comment, one is implicitly endorsing it as reliable (unless you explicitly state otherwise, but then?that is not without comment!) In these cases, you must either flag it as dodgy, or leave it out altogether.

Sure, if one has reason to do so. No problem.?
?
>in the present case, the Australian author may not have known enough about N.Z. or the degree to which the N.Z. has been sampled for tenebrionids to see a problem at all. If so, then I am not blaming him for anything. 

ok

Nonetheless, it would have been better for that record to carry a red flag or be left out.

Only if the author had reason to do so as you said above.?
?
>Scientists are not robots, processing data as input and output. They have real human intelligence and insight, which must not of course be permitted to be entirely unrestrained, but rather used with discretion. Given what I know about N.Z. tenebrionids, and even what has been published, and other groups in N.Z., it is in one of those wonderfully insightful human intelligence ways overwhelmingly obvious that the Whangarei record is a mislabelling.

Well, perhaps for you, but not necessarily the author.?

Actually, it is based quite heavily just on hard empirical data that such disjunctions just don't happen here for big flightless beetles like this one. 

Well of course if the record were true then your statement would not be correct.

There is a REMOTE possibility that this is the first, but science isn't about giving equal weight to all possibilities, no matter how remote! 

But something is not remote just because one says so.

If the author knew this, which he may well not have, then IMHO it was his duty to make some comment to that effect.

Since you do not know either way this is not informative.

Crap data is like DDT in the ecosystem, it tends to accumulate in nasty places, so we must always try to purge ourselves of it at the first opportunity ...

In this case such status appears to be a matter of opinion rather than empirical fact.

John Grehan?
?
>Stephen
>
>
>From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
>Cc: "TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
>Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2012 4:02 PM 
>
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Digitizing Science Collections
>
>
>
>Comments inserted below.
>
>
>On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>John,
>>?
>>This issue is quite important, at least "academically", so I will once again try to clarify my views, relating them to this specific example, and your comments below. Nobody can prove the negative, even if the species doesn't occur in Whangarei now, 
>
>
>How does one know that the species does not occur in Whangarei now?
>
>and left no trace, it might have done so when that single?specimen was collected. It is a REMOTE possibility.
>
>
>Why is the possibility remote?
>
>But that is surely not how science works? If you indicate something without comment, such as the presence of this species in that surprising place, then it should be more than just a remote possibility. 
>
>
>But what is surprising about the place, what makes it remote as a?possibility?
>
>If it is just a remote possibility, then you should say so. 
>
>
>Then that would be true of any locality, but one does not see taxonomists making such comments about every locality for every taxon in each publication.
>
>This may require appeal to all sorts of evidence, including experience and local knowledge *of the group*. Scientists should not ignore good evidence!
>
>
>So what is the "good evidence" that the author ignored??
>?
>>It was actually my point and not yours that if it were some other kind of organism, like a mite for example, then the Whangarei record could well be genuine, and the apparent disjunction due to uneven and low sampling effort. 
>
>
>ok. Good for you.
>
>But, given what I know about actual sampling effort of N.Z. tenebrionids, this is overwhelmingly unlikely in this case. There is a remote possibility that the disjunction could be real, but there are so few other N.Z. examples of this, that it is also highly unlikely.
>
>
>What is your empirical evidence for this being unlikely??
>?
>>At any rate, I am not suggesting that the author ought to have stated with certainty that it is a bogus record, 
>
>
>or even mentioned the?possibility?as that possibility applies to all records.
>
>they should just have either left it out until confirmed by further material, or at least made some comment to the effect that it is an outlier and may be bogus. 
>
>
>Again, what empirical evidence is there that it is an 'outlier' any more than any other record, or why should the author make any reference to the?possibility?of it being a bogus record?
>
>Otherwise, the reader may just accept it without a second thought ...
>
>
>Well, then that is true of all published records. But in practice all records are just hypotheses of location at a time and place, and all may be in question. In the end for practical purposes, we are given a set of records and it is what we make of them rather than what may not exist that seems to matter for practical purposes.
>
>
>John Grehan?
>?
>>Cheers,
>>?
>>Stephen
>>
>>
>>From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
>>Cc: "TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
>>Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2012 1:54 PM 
>>
>>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Digitizing Science Collections
>>
>>
>>
>>Stephen, 
>>
>>
>>I take it that it was obvious to you that there was?mislabeling?because you have proved that this species was not present at the locality or area indicated??
>>
>>
>>And if that is the case it does not preclude what I have said, that the distributional relationship is found in other taxa and so not beyond a reasonable?possibility.?
>>
>>
>>Of course ultimately all records are subject to corroboration or refutation, but if we were to take that approach with everything nothing would be accepted unless we individually checked the location ourselves for every living entity on this planet. 
>>
>>
>>As for ignoring local knowledge and experience you will need to provide specifics for that to be evaluated.
>>
>>
>>John Grehan
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>I have to disagree John! I was saying that the mislabelling is obvious to someone who has local knowledge *of the group* (Tenebrionidae) in N.Z., but not obvious to others. You have just proved me correct on the last point. "Objectivity" does *not* mean ignoring local knowledge and experience with a taxon...
>>>?
>>>Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>>From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
>>>Cc: "TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
>>>Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2012 3:07 AM 
>>>
>>>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Digitizing Science Collections
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>While geographically distant disjunctions certainly attract interest, accepting them at face value may be no more uncritical than for any record. In this case there appears to be no information to make any judgement and I do not see the need for the author to make any necessary author. Further corroboration might be desirable if one wan't to question the record. There is the case of Metrosideros parkinsoni on offshore islands near Whangarei and also in NW South Island, or the Sticherus and Asplenium in the northern North Island and South Island, or the moth Sabantica calliarcha in the Coromandel?Peninsula?(single location) and South Island. If anything, the author might be critiqued for not recognizing the pattern in the work, but now the question might be, how common is the?occurrence and what is its biogeographic significance? 
>>>
>>>
>>>John Grehan?
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>note that I am?primarily arguing against the *uncritical* use of label data (which happens), and suggesting that in cases of doubt, the only way to settle it is to go out into the field and verify presence/absence
>>>>?
>>>>for an example of how not to do it, see p. 11 in: 
>>>>Matthews, E.G. 2003: Ulomotypus Broun a member of the new subfamily Palorinae, with remarks on Aphtora Bates and Demtrius Broun (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). New Zealand entomologist, 26: 7?14.
>>>>http://www.ento.org.nz/nzentomologist/abstract.php?volume_issue=j26_1&first_page=7
>>>>
>>>>not really the fault of the Australian author, but the peer review editorial process should have picked it up. Yes, a single specimen of Ulomotypus laevigatus (a fairly large flightless beetle) is labelled as being from Whangarei (north of the North Island), while all others are from the South Island, but to simply list it without comment is hardly helpful! For some other taxa in Hymenoptera or Diptera, for example, such a distribution pattern could be?a genuine consequence?of small sample size (so it is not "objectively" a red flag), but this is most unlikely in the present case, and simple mislabelling will be to blame. An N.Z. entomologist might be able to see this as an obvious case of mislabelling, but not so others, so at least some sort of comment was warranted. This is a case of "too much objectivity", instead of utilising genuine local knowledge and?judgement with the fauna...
>>>>
>>>>Stephen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
>>>>Cc: "TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 4:23 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Digitizing Science Collections
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Going out an personally recording the distribution is not always feasible. Hence using label data from specimens is sometimes the only practical option. In a current revision of a ghost moth genus in Latin America I do not have the $ to collect specimens from the wild and so have to rely on specimens collected by others. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>John Grehan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>label data is a huge can of worms for all sorts of reasons! After having thought the issue through at some length, I have come to the probably rather unpopular conclusion that it is a bad idea to think that the totality of label data for any given taxon is a useful thing to have! It is somewhat analogous to the example of using WoRMS as a source for that squat lobster article on WP ... given the way the WoRMS page was at the time, it was best to just not mention it at all! There is a certain irony that it is common nowadays for scientists to spend money going on collecting tours to get fresh material of taxa for use in DNA analysis. Actually, it would be better to go on a collecting tour to gather reliable distributional information for the taxon! Any distribution map based on the uncritical acceptance of label data is likely to be problematic, unles the map is so coarse that points cover a significant proportion of the planet! Even worse is
 displaying a
>>>>>?distribution map of a tiny subsample of available label data! If you want to know the geographical distribution of a taxon, you gotta go out and measure it ... carefully!
>>>>>?
>>>>>Stephen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>________________________________
>>>>>From: David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com>
>>>>>To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 10:01 AM
>>>>>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Digitizing Science Collections
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, original data labels are often extremely misleading,
>>>>>> especially regarding distributional information. After georeferencing
>>>>>> over 200,000 insect specimens from multiple institutions, the figures
>>>>>> work out to over 20% of all original labels have significant
>>>>>> omissions or ambiguities (the latter category being primarily things
>>>>>> like abbreviations, uncertain reference points, uncertain date
>>>>>> formats, or handwriting problems), and some 5% of all original labels
>>>>>> have genuine errors of one sort or another (mostly typographical
>>>>>> errors). I doubt such problems are unique to insect labels.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can confirm that mollusk labels have similar issues with similarly
>>>>>high frequency, though I have not tallied percentages. In fact,
>>>>>insects may have better than average quality of average data because
>>>>>fewer specimens survive from the "I picked these up somewhere when my
>>>>>ship sailed around the world" era.? Having a misidentified specimen
>>>>>with good locality data is far more useful than a correctly identified
>>>>>specimen with bad locality data, as the identification can be fixed
>>>>>from the specimen.? Someone knowledgeable about the taxon or locality
>>>>>may be able to recognize that a record is supect, even without
>>>>>examining the specimen.? But all data in a database needs competent
>>>>>checking to be reliable.? And many larger collections will include
>>>>>items from various sources, of varying reliability for their
>>>>>localities and identifications.
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem is compounded when online databases grab information from
>>>>>varied sources without careful verification or good harmonization
>>>>>protocols.? In particular, homonyms can lead to perfectly good
>>>>>information from one database being presented wrongly in another one,
>>>>>which claims that corrections should be referred back to the first
>>>>>database.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Dr. David Campbell
>>>>>Collections Assistant
>>>>>The Paleontological Research Institution
>>>>>1259 Trumansburg Road
>>>>>Ithaca NY 14850
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>
>>>>>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>>>>>
>>>>>(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>
>>>>>(2) a Google search specified as:? site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom? your search terms here
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>
>>>>>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>>>>>
>>>>>(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>
>>>>>(2) a Google search specified as: ?site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom ?your search terms here
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>