[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Mon Aug 22 00:19:45 CDT 2016
2016
Perhaps modify to say "most lepidopterists don't change species epithets to
match the gender of the combined genus".
John Grehan
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> 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