Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 21 18:37:35 CDT 2016 

Hi John,

I am glad you had a good experience with IRMNG (also in its new
incarnation, now running on a parallel database system + software to that
created for WoRMS). Since its inception I have performed the function of
IRMNG "global editor" (with some welcome assistance from others) but the
intention has been stated to potentially set up a network of distributed
editors responsible for particular groups, as per WoRMS, and in addition
for marine groups, eventually automatically propagate changes and new
content from WoRMS as it is entered there to avoid the requirement for
double handling and to keep the two systems in step.

With regard to the specific taxonomic.nomenclatural exaample issues you
raise, it is easy for me (or a future other editor) to change the
status of Achladaeus
(accepted name to nomen nudum)  - I can do that now if you wish - but it
also raises the question of what to do with its present 32 quoted species,
which I think are still being treated as accepted (i.e. unchanged)  in the
2016 Catalogue of Life. I checked LepIndex just now at the NHM and they are
still listing Achladaeus as a valid genus with around 23 valid species as
well as a number of unaccepted ones, so ideally if one were to depart from
this treatment one would need a separate published source to follow.

For an example name in that genus still treated as valid in the current
version of LepIndex, see *ACHLADAEUS acaciae *Pfitzner, 1933:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/search/detail.dsml?UserID=&UserName=&TaxonNo=136628.0&SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card=acaciae&listPageURL=list%2edsml%3fSCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_cardqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26sort%3dSCIENTIFIC%255fNAME%255fon%255fcard%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card%3dalboextremus%26recLimit%3d30&searchPageURL=index%2edsml%3fsort%3dSCIENTIFIC%255fNAME%255fon%255fcard%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_cardqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card%3dalboextremus%26recLimit%3d30

(no idea if that link will survive email transport...)

apparently this species was originally erected in the genus Chargia which
according to most conventions would require the author and year to be
placed in parantheses (as I recall Lepidopterans often do not do this??)

Anyway, all things are possible (or actually, most things), it just depends
what one wishes to do and where best to do it...

Regards - Tony



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

On 22 August 2016 at 04:50, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list