[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Sun Aug 21 13:50:10 CDT 2016

Thanks to everyone for all the kind and thoughtful feedback. And also for
the E. fahringeri entry to ZooBank. Looks like there is no obvious answer
for me at this time as to the best choice - at least for my purposes. uBio
had a good format with respect to seeing what was listed already (but I was
unable to contact the administrator). ZooBank does not show the full
content for what is listed already so its a bit tricky in that respect (or
I missed a step) - and it appears to be lacking a huge amount of names for
my group - I tried a well established genus Endoclita first designated in
1874 and got nothing.

And of course there are other layers of complexity such as generic
designations which, in my group, underwent a  reversal with a checklist in
2000 downgrading a bunch of genera under one name (and as a checklist there
was no justification) and then reinstatement (with justification) of those
names in 2012. IRMNG has a promising layout as I can see full species lists
and looks attractive from that aspect, although very much out of date due
to its reliance on the out of date NHM database - one particularly
problematic example was a genus name Achladaeus that was inserted for a
series of species under another well established name (Aenetus), but
Achladaeus was already known to be a nomen nudum and it was recorded as
such on the original files of the NHM. When I contacted NHM I was told that
there were no resources for making the correction at the time (a few years
back), but they have now made that correction but the genus is still
presented as valid in IRMNG. However, that could be something for me to
rectify. At the time of the original entry of Achladaeus it was interesting
to see how the name spread like wildfire through all sorts of web sites.
Made for real confusion.

I will think on this further, but at this time IRMNG seems to have a layout
or structure that is most easily accessible for me (so emphasis on this as
a personal perspective with respect to my strengths and weakness)  to
understand what is present or not. Again, no criticism implied above for
any databases as its a truly massive challenge and I am just a taxonomic
hobbyist for a small, obscure group, and without intensive taxonomic
database skills.

John Grehan

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 7:44 AM, David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>