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
Mon Aug 22 00:14:54 CDT 2016 

Tony said: "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??)"

I meant to reply to this, but I forgot. Everybody does that! What lepidopterists don't do is to change species epithets to match the gender of the combined genus.

Stephen

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

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases
 To: "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 22 August, 2016, 5:06 PM
 
 Tony,
 
 There is a revision of Aenetus (at least for
 Australia) that will be
 published in the not
 too distant future, so this particular bone can be
 laid to rest then. This situation is one where
 a nomenclatural change has
 been made by
 someone for a database rather than in a publication and
 it
 seems that for whatever reason this is
 hard to undo even though the
 original change
 was invalid - as the Tree of Life link given by Stephen
 shows, the Achladaeus name is a nomen nudum.
 Even the nhm site includes a
 quote to that
 effect! see http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-
 science/data/butmoth/search/GenusDetails.dsml?NUMBER=174.0&&
 Anyway I am
 sure this situation is no more
 challenging than for many other groups. At
 least I am working on a group that not many are
 interested in, and I don't
 have to
 contend with the kind of problems described in taxacom
 for
 herpetologists. I should be grateful.
 
 If species are transferred to
 another genus then yes, in my experience it
 is pretty much standard practice for
 Lepidopterists to place author names
 and
 dates in parentheses.
 
 John
 Grehan
 
 On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at
 7:37 PM, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 > 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