[Taxacom] Minimum standards for e-voucher documentation (was Provisions to the Code)

Mon Apr 21 11:16:55 CDT 2014

I would add to the caution expressed concerning collections. I head about
one debacle that occurred in one major collection where access was provided
for removing body parts without curatorial oversight (that oversight being
precluded by the institution). Apparently specimens were mixed up and
others severely damaged. The curator as one other institution (who
supported molecular approaches) said they would not permit such access
because of those kinds of problems (and the opinion of that curator that
barcoding collection material was largely a waste of time).  If nothing
else, barcoding enterprises should commit themselves to only examining
specimens with the direct oversight and control of collection managers.

John Grehan

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM, David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com>wrote:

> Quality information is critical, but it's difficult to formulate a standard
> when different taxa vary greatly in their key features.  For many animals,
> dissection showing reproductive features is critical, and often challenging
> *(e.g*., microscopic).  Others have key differences in a specific part.
> Barcodes have great potential for facilitating identification, but only if
> the validity of the barcode is tested for the group in question and
> specimens are carefully identified.
> As with any online compilation, content must be accompanied by appropriate
> curation.  There needs to be a quick way to communicate information (such
> as corrected identification) to a responsible party.  In the case of
> barcoding, where often large numbers of specimens are quickly processed,
> it's particularly important to have a clearly designated identifier for a
> particular specimen.  It's frustrating to notice an error in a barcoding
> project, search through several pages to finally find some contact
> information, and then be told that the submitted identifier (the one used
> in GenBank) was not the proper identifier to enable them to tell which
> specimen had the problem.  At least they could have given some sort of clue
> as to what the correct identifier would have been ("the one where you've
> got a photo of something from a different order" wouldn't do, either).
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Schindel, David <schindeld at si.edu> wrote:
>
> > The Consortium for the Barcode of Life (CBOL) is leading the Barcode of
> > Wildlife Project on endangered species.  We will be grappling with the
> > issue of what minimum documentation should be required for occurrence
> > records and BARCODE records in GenBank when there is no traditional
> voucher
> > specimen (e.g., dead animal bones and skin or a herbarium sheet).  This
> has
> > special significance in the project which is constructing a reference
> > library of barcode records in GenBank that will be used to identify the
> > species of organisms involved in the investigation and prosecution of
> > wildlife crime.  We're all familiar with circumstances in which a
> > traditional voucher specimen is either impractical (e.g., endangered
> whales
> > or other large species) or illegal (endangered/protected species).  There
> > was a small literature on 'e-vouchers' a few years ago but as far as I
> > know, it never evolved to the level of a proposed standard for
> > documentation.
> >
> > This is related to the ongoing thread about holotypes but I stress that
> we
> > are not trying to erect new species without a traditional type specimen.
> >  Rather, we want to provide a credible way for someone to verify the
> > species identification of a specimen with a GenBank record when there is
> no
> > traditional voucher.  Tissue samples, photographs, geolocation,
> > measurements and environmental context data are the obvious elements in
> > such a standard.  Do any of you know of an effort to formalize these
> > minimum information standards?
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > David Schindel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:
> > taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of laurent raty
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:23 AM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code
> >
> > - "Physical specimen" is not a term regulated by the ICZN. In fact, the
> > word "physical" appears exactly zero times in the entire text of the
> > Code; and given the definition of "specimen" there, an "un-physical
> > specimen" (Stephen used the word "ghost" recently) seems to be an
> > impossibility. Specimens are always physical, or they would be no
> > specimens.
> >
> > - What comes closest in the ICZN to what some seem to call "physical
> > specimen" is "extant specimen" ("sp?cimens qui existent toujours" in the
> > French text).
> >
> > - For names published after 1999, Art.16.4.2 gives explicit additional
> > requirements for availability in the special case where the holotype or
> > syntypes are extant specimens. As this is clearly treated as a special
> > case, it is obvious that having extant specimens as types cannot be
> > understood as a general requirement for all species-group names
> > published after 1999.
> >
> > - Again, it is a complete misreading to pretend that:
> > "73.1.4. Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a
> > holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated;
> > the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not
> > of itself invalidate the designation."
> > ...introduces an exception to a general "rule" that would say that a
> > holotype must be an extant specimen. Should such a "rule" exist, this
> > article would actually not allow any exception to it: the designation of
> > the illustrated specimen would be allowed only if the specimen is
> > extant; the designation of the illustration would have to be treated as
> > the designation of the specimen; thus, should the specimen not be
> > extant, the designation of the illustration would not be allowed.
> >
> > The truth is that there is NO such rule in the Code.
> >
> > My two cents,
> > Laurent -
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04/16/2014 09:48 AM, Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> > > From: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:38 AM
> > >
> > >> Hi all:  here is the current code for algae, fungi, and plants
> > >> (
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page%3Dtitle&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r”xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&sá234d69e54d95922d340300d45e3d1719a2e98c46bb13d43b448028992f9e95
> > )
> > >
> > >> Bottom line:  after 2007, physical specimen only (exceptions as noted
> > >> below).
> > >
> > > ***
> > > This is not particularly accurate. Illustrations may be
> > > types, and the date of 1 January 2007 does not change
> > > that; such illustrations as were types before that date will
> > > continue to be so after that date. And new designations
> > > of illustrations as types may still be made after that date.
> > >
> > > What has changed with 1 January is that names of new
> > > species or new infraspecific taxa may not have an
> > > illustration as a type (exceptions excepted).
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r”xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&sÙf54cf48371af1f22f8c4749482432199c25b34415db3e7d8dba08f199e5f01
> > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r”xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&sZ6347632a4f57b5937d5523780efebac85be4516d4c8a98ff9ca27b191e26b2
> > >
> > > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r”xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&sÙf54cf48371af1f22f8c4749482432199c25b34415db3e7d8dba08f199e5f01
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r”xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&sZ6347632a4f57b5937d5523780efebac85be4516d4c8a98ff9ca27b191e26b2
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> Assistant Professor, Geology
> Department of Natural Sciences
> Box 7270
> Gardner-Webb University
> Boiling Springs NC 28017
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>