[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Sun Aug 21 16:18:16 CDT 2016

John,
The truth is that human nature, linked to both economic and broadly "egoistic" factors, is a massive obstruction to what could be achieved in terms of online taxonomic/scientific databases. Unless people can learn to work together, we are going to be forever stuck in the current situation of having too many more or less independent databases, all of which are far from ideal.
Cheers,
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 22/8/16, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases
 To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 22 August, 2016, 6:50 AM

 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 very much out of date due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 the out of date NHM database - one particularly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.
 >
 _______________________________________________
 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.