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

[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Aug 21 18:46:35 CDT 2016 

Tony, you may find some clues to Achladaeus here: http://ftp.funet.fi/index/Tree_of_life/insecta/lepidoptera/exoporia/hepialoidea/hepialidae/aenetus/

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 22/8/16, 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: Monday, 22 August, 2016, 11:37 AM
 
 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.
 >
 _______________________________________________
 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