Botanical Web Wish List.

Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
Wed Jan 28 12:07:51 CST 2004


I'll second that! Some of us have Web sites that have at least one unique
"paper" that should last longer than our professional lifetime. Some of us
have also put Web pages into the bibliographies of submitted papers, and the
longevity of such papers are not under our control.

We might (1) pester our institutional IT depts and libraries to archive
annually all our own unique Web site publications, and (2) if we cite Web
pages in our papers, capture them and leave a copy on our own Web page (with
complete citations of origin and date), under an explanatory index page.



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Kirkbride [mailto:joe at NT.ARS-GRIN.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:36 AM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Botanical Web Wish List.


My botanical wish list for the Web (and all electronically available data)
is to have it backuped!  As far as I know, the International Plant Names
Index (IPNI) is the only botanical taxonomic database available via the Web
that is mirrored.  Things that I accessed 5-10 years ago have disappeared.
Recently there was a reference on Taxacom to a database of Neotropical
Rubaiceae genera that was available at NY; I finally found its web page
stored at a small southeastern US university.  As a community, botanists
have to start conserving and making available databases distributed via the
Internet.  The libraries are apparently not dealing with this problem.

JOSEPH H. KIRKBRIDE, JR.
Research Botanist
USDA Agricultural Research Service
Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory
Rm. 304, Bldg. 011A, BARC-West
Beltsville, MD 20705-2350 USA
Telephone: 301-504-9447
FAX: 301-504-5810
E-mail:  joe at nt.ars-grin.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Hyam [mailto:roger at HYAM.NET]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 5:36 AM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: [TAXACOM] Botanical Web Wish List.

What would you like to see on the internet as far as Taxonomy ( and
particularly botanical taxonomy ) is concerned?

What is there but needs improving - and how?

What is missing and should be implemented?




More information about the Taxacom mailing list