[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Sat Aug 20 20:54:21 CDT 2016

There are many awkward issues involved here. Every existing option has significant disadvantages of one kind or another. What we actually need is something along the following lines (nothing exactly like it seems to exist at present): 

A database open to everyone to contribute (publicly displaying when a record was created and who by), but which has the following two features: 

(1) Every little pedantic formatting detail must controlled and fixed in advance by the database, leaving no formatting options for contributors to argue over; and

(2) there must be a flag option (publicly displaying when the flag was set and who by) for any record, to be used if there is some sort of problem with that record, possibly with an explanation field to go with the flag, but this would require moderation.

Cheers, Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 21/8/16, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases
 To: "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Sunday, 21 August, 2016, 1:32 PM

 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 Lepidoptera will be somewhat out-of-date, being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
 >>
 >>
 >
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Injecting Intellectual
 Liquidity for 29 years.