[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Sun Aug 21 06:44:29 CDT 2016

Thomson Reuters has "standardized" Zoological Record to match their other
indexing, or in other words eliminated much of the zoological usefulness.

Many nomenclatural databases do not make it easy to determine how (or if)
additions and corrections can be submitted, though others are quite
responsive.  Ultimately their reliability will depend upon adequate support
for the taxonomic expertise necessary for data generation and verification,
as well as good systems to facilitate and assess contributions.  WoRMS does
a good job, but I don't think it's an option for lepidopterans.
Paleobiology Database suffers from the usual issues for crowdsourcing - the
crowd varies in expertise and thoroughness.

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:02 PM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Tony,
>
> Tried both links. The NH list is years out of date. IRMING seemed to be
> also (which is what you anticipated).
>
> In the good old days (my good old days, zoo record could be counted on to
> do a pretty good coverage - not that it was generally accessible (still?).
> Where does that fit into the picture these days?
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 Lepidoptera will be somewhat out-of-date, being based on the version of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.
>

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