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

[Peter Rauch]

Dave states:  " Yes, it will vary by taxonomic group but assuming that we
cannot kill and preserve a specimen, what's the minimum information and
material we should require if we want to be able to corroborate the species
ID independently from the barcode sequence?"

It would seem to me that you would first want to allow that the "minimum"
be a function not only of the taxonomic group, but of various other
circumstances such as you and others describe (protected species, specimen
too large, too delicate, reference to a proxy photo instead of to the
specimen --perhaps also readily accessible-- from which the barcode was
obtained, etc).

A "minimum" that is not constrained by some fairly stringent conditions
could quickly lead to a tendency for the next barcode practitioner to apply
a "minimum" standard with little justification for not going the distance
and assuring that more than the minimum (proxy) information/material is
available to corroborate the relationship between the barcode data and the
source specimen from which it was obtained.

So, perhaps we want not only the "proxies [which] could be considered as
adequate replacements for a traditional voucher", but also to develop an
explicit metadata set to be used for indicating WHY the particular proxy
had to be used in this instance. Or, alternatively, should there be some
guiding rules/principles that disallow the use of proxies UNLESS they meet
very specific criteria for their use ?

Peter


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Schindel, David <schindeld at si.edu> wrote:

> This discussion immediately veered off-topic so I'll add some further
> information to try to get it back on track.
>
> A common complaint about online biodiversity databases is the lack of
> links to voucher specimens that can be re-examined to corroborate or refute
> the species name on the database records and the lack of quality control
> over species identification.
>
> The BARCODE data standard addresses the first concern directly by
> requiring a voucher ID in a standard format that will lead anyone with a
> question back to the repository, collection and catalog number associated
> with the voucher.  CBOL constructed the Global Registry of Biological
> Repositories (www.grbio.com, a merger with Index Herbariorium and
> Biodiversity Collections Index), as an authoritative look-up table for
> InstitutionCodes and CollectionCodes.
>
> The second weakness is more difficult to address so the Barcode of
> Wildlife is extending the BARCODE data standard by adding several metadata
> fields associated with the reliability of the species identification.  The
> include fields such as:
>
>    - Name of the identifier
>    - Date of the identification
>    - Type status of the voucher specimen (if any)
>    - Basis of identification (was the voucher specimen a complete adult, a
> pre-adult, a part, a tissue sample only, digital image only?)
>    - To what was the voucher compared?  Reference collections? Literature
> figures? Field guides? Morphological key?
>
> The question I posed is this.  Assuming it is out of the question to have
> a complete study skin or skeleton or liquid-preserved voucher, what proxies
> could be considered as adequate replacements for a traditional voucher?
>  Yes, it will vary by taxonomic group but assuming that we cannot kill and
> preserve a specimen, what's the minimum information and material we should
> require if we want to be able to corroborate the species ID independently
> from the barcode sequence?
>
> David
>

...cut, cut...


> > 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
>
> >
> > --
> > Dr. David Campbell
> > Assistant Professor, Geology
> > Department of Natural Sciences
> > Box 7270
> > Gardner-Webb University
> > Boiling Springs NC 28017
>