[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

[Tony Rees]

Update RE John's request...

On 22 August 2016 John Grehan wrote:

----------------
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.
-----------------

Well, John sent me a list of the affected taxa and I have made the relevant
changes in IRMNG on his behalf (not something I plan to do all the time,
but worth doing as an exercise). There were quite a few species affected,
new names to enter, etc. etc.

If interested, you can see the revised entry for Achladaeus here:
  http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1018983

The revised one for Aenetus here:
  http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1280671

And the auto-generated list of changes arising from his supplied list here:
  http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=sourcedetails&id=193998

OK, quite a bit of work to affect the requested changes, but useful (in my
mind at least) to demonstrate:

(a) the benefit of entering them in this manner into an internally-self
organising system i.e. database-driven site (each data item entered only
once, used many times elsewhere in the system as required) as opposed to
just a manually maintained text file or web page,

(b) the potential for data re-use (either manual or automated), since IRMNG
data is periodically exported to other systems as well as being visible to
human readers via the web, and

(c) hopefully some longevity for the data (since it lives on a system which
hopefully will be maintained into the future, and not by me). In addition,
new data or corrections can potentially be maintained in the future by
others with associated "custodian" privileges (i.e. all the load need not
fall on just one person).

Interesting exercise (although it makes me glad I stick to editing genera
in the main - around 10 times fewer!!)

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