[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

[Paul Kirk]

Hi Tony,


Just one comment. The mycologist do not have the problem you refer to with new names - we have pre-publication registration. If the name is not registered, when published, it doesn't exist nomenclaturally. Its not a perfect system but it's better than what we had, because the unlimited resources needed, to which you refer, are provided in small amounts by each of the authors of the new names - it's community action for community good. The botanists are in catch-up mode, having recently launched a voluntary system - like we did in 2004 :-) ... and I know the zoologist (well, some of them) are also discussing registration of names rather than e-publications. Unfortunately, the speed with which we move is no better than that of the UN .. not as fast as most would prefer. Being human eh?

Paul
________________________________
From: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
Sent: 27 August 2016 07:28
To: Roderic Page
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Paul Kirk
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Hi Rod,

In my view it's the same problem just viewed from different starting points. In an ideal world and with unlimited resources, one would subscribe to all the taxonomic literature, pick out all the new names and new treatments of existing ones, and database the lot i.e. literature and names together - just like Zoological Record does (mostly). Lesser mortals or "labour of love" projects that cannot afford such a complete approach concentrate on the areas they find most tractable and interesting - e.g. compile the names first, then look for the relevant literature, or vice versa. It's not an either/or. And at present, probably the percentage of names compiled (somewhere) is somewhat ahead of the percentage of literature citations compiled (except maybe in botany, but those folks are just odd (<humour></humour>), so standing on the shoulders of giants and all, that is maybe a task that has a sooner chance of completion.

Not that I disagree with the points you make of course regarding names with poor provenance. But at least that can be a prompt to look further for the same (something I find myself doing fairly often...)

Just my 2 cents,

Cheers - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees

[https://aboutme.imgix.net/background/users/t/o/n/tonyrees_1442476357_27.jpg?w=1200&h=140&q=80&dpr=1&auto=format&fit=max&crop=faces]<https://about.me/TonyRees>

Tony Rees | about.me<https://about.me/TonyRees>
about.me
View Tony Rees on about.me, your personal page with a purpose. Tony Rees uses about.me to show people what matters most to them.




On 27 August 2016 at 16:13, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hi Tony,

I'd argue that focus sing on getting. A list of names alone is not enough, I'd spin the problem around and say we should get the taxonomic literature, because that contains the names linked to evidence. We're awash in unsupported lists of names, which we endlessly recycle up the food chain until the end up in places like GBIF and nobody has a clue where they came from or whether they are actual names.

I think we're still proceeding as if the literature was physical and we need to create 5x3 index cards of names. We can do a lot better than that.

Regards,

Rod