[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

[Tony Rees]

Hi John,

I just checked, and currently Catalogue of Life (2016) is getting data
for Hepialidae
from LepIndex (2012 version) which would be why newer names would not be
there. I am wondering if the names are included in "Butterflies and Moths
of the World" (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/butmoth/) at the same
institution (NHM in London) and whether there are plans for CoL to use that
as an improved source, as I have seen criticisms of LepIndex as the best
source these days; if they are there, then you do not need to enter them,
and if not, it might be worth contacting that database's compilers.

As an alternative, I like to host as many new names as I can find (with
realistic levels of effort) into my own system "IRMNG" (www.irmng.org), for
which e.g. you can see current holdings for Hepialidae here:
http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=100937 . (Note, there may be
additional genera already held but not yet allocated to that family,
presently under "Lepidoptera - awaiting allocation"). My species names for
Lepidoptera will be somewhat out-of-date, being based on the version of
LepIndex as held in Cat. of Life 2006 (maybe much the same as today) but I
am happy to have additions from newer sources as well. IRMNG content is
also regularly exported to other systems for their use as desired including
those of GBIF, EOL (Encyclopedia of Life), Glonal Names/Global Names
Resolver, OTOL (Open Tree of Life), WoRMS (for marine taxa) and more. Take
a look and see what you think...

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees

On 21 August 2016 at 10:32, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> In my case it would just be new species and genera as documented in recent
> publications. This would be just for one family of moths (Hepialidae) and
> for extant species only. The question is what is the simplest data base out
> there by which such updates can be made and will automatically be
> incorporated into other data bases and search engines. Irony is that a
> general google search will turn up the names, but they are not in a couple
> of the taxonomic databases I have looked at so far.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a good question, on which I have some views (which differ somewhat
>> from Richard's), however I would be interested to see what others may
>> suggest too... a lot depends on, I would suggest:
>>
>>   - to what group you are interested in contributing (also whether
>> extant, fossil, or both)
>>   - what aspects most interest you e.g. names/nomenclatural aspects,
>> taxonomy/phylogeny, ecology, geographic distribution...
>>   - whether you wish to contribute summaries of "mainstream"
>> views/published literature or personal opinions/new interpretations (the
>> latter may be less welcome than the former)
>>
>> Among my criteria for selecting a relevant vehicle for contributions
>> would be (1) state of completeness already - since why re-do work
>> unnecessarily if others have already done much of it, and (2) current
>> impact/usage of the system - in other words if you put effort in, who will
>> utilise it. In terms of the latter aspect, I would tend to favour databases
>> already contributing to Catalogue of Life (for maximum impact/take-up),
>> which are mainly "controlled units" of endeavour with their own individual
>> contact points, or perhaps PaleoBiology Database for fossils (which is more
>> open access I understand). Just some thoughts...
>>
>> Regards - Tony
>>
>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>> https://about.me/TonyRees
>>
>>
>