[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

[Geoff Read]

Did people also notice "Gnathosoma"  on one of the pages was reported as a
genus in the names box? That might be a misspelling of the nematode genus,
Gnathostoma, perhaps the misspelling created by Krefft, 1871 (fide IRMNG),
although in context in the article by Haitlinger it was a morphological
term  Oops. I wonder how many of those are around - well BHL reports 1396
usages.

What would be useful for BHL to do would be to direct users to the source
where they got the name (as a genus or a binomen) and a (wrong) match
exists - not just to the database but the instance of the match itself.

The names are periodically reindexed, and BHL say they cannot act on error
reports - because the corrections would just get overwritten.

Just to add that the indexing is very useful for name-trackers like me.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:53 a.m.
To: Nadia Talent <nadia.talent at utoronto.ca>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Hi Nadia,
"Those are extreme examples"
Extreme perhaps, but do we really know how prevalent?
Cheers,
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 23/8/16, Nadia Talent <nadia.talent at utoronto.ca> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 23 August, 2016, 1:41 AM

 Hi Stephen,

 Those are extreme examples,
 seemingly Leptus japonicus and Crepis japonicus were turned  into the not
even remotely related Cleopus japonicus. The  second, but not the first
might perhaps be an OCR  phenomenon? As for the first, I've seen what
might be a  similar mechanism, but the names that were mixed up were 
plausibly synonyms, differing in the species epithet, as if  some other
database were the source of hypercorrection  (Allamanda neriifolia was
put in place of Allamanda  schottii; the replacement is, strangely, the
junior  synonym).

 Perhaps a weevil
 genus name exists that an overly imaginative OCR corrector  could mistake
for Leptus, and a synonymy database lurking  somewhere then links it to
Cleopus.

 I would argue that synonyms do not belong in  the "Scientific Names on
this Page" list; if they  are to appear at all, it should only be as a
clearly marked  option. I hope nobody is using those "Scientific Names 
on this Page" as data for analysis!

 Nadia
 -------------------------------
 Nadia Talent
 Research
 Associate,
 Royal Ontario Museum,
 Green Plant Herbarium (TRT),
 Department of Natural History,
 100 Queen's Park,
 Toronto,
 Canada, M5S 2C6
 http://nadiatalent.github.io

 On Aug 22, 2016, at 0:52, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:

 > Here is an
 example of what can and does go wrong with automated
 methods:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/name/Cleopus_japonicus_Wingelm$,_1914
 > If you click on either of the linked
 pages, you will find no mention of Cleopus japonicus, except  in the
"Scientific Names on this Page" field on  the left! Something is going
awry and askew!
 >
 >
 Stephen

--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz