Names for BioDiv Informatics
Michael W Palmer
carex at OKSTATE.EDU
Tue Feb 1 10:31:50 CST 2005
With respect to biodiversity informatics, I think there is also a need for
an 'inventory of inventories'. This sort of project falls between the
cracks, and is very difficult to get funded. But it is a good resource to
assess common usage of names, whether or not they are valid. It is also
useful for quantifying biodiversity at multiple scales and through time.
For an example of an 'inventory of inventories', see my floras project at:
Michael W. Palmer
Botany Dept. OSU
104 LSE Stillwater OK 74078 USA
carex at okstate.edu
Faunaplan at AOL.COM
Sent by: Taxacom Discussion List <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
02/01/2005 04:10 AM
Please respond to Faunaplan
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
cc: (bcc: Michael W Palmer/bot/cas/Okstate)
Subject: [TAXACOM] Names for BioDiv Informatics
so far, published information on taxa is distributed in thousands of
websites and unpublished data are mainly deposited in collections
of life"). Still there is no infrastructure for easy access to such vital
information, but GBIF and its partners have started to build the roads...
What I feel is still basically missing are checklists of valid names that
could serve as keyword directories for the fast-growing biodiversity info
Ron Gatrell has recently used the term "taxonomically correct names" when
announced the Lepidoptera checklists, and many taxonomists have already
created wonderful on-line checklists of valid names.
But, will there ever be checklists of universally accepted/ valid names?
In my understanding, valid names are all Code-compliant names that are
accepted by individual taxonomists according to their preferred concepts.
Bembidion (Nothocys) jeannelicum Toledano, 2002 and Nothocys nitidus
are both valid/ accepted names for the same neotropic ground beetle, and I
cannot say one is "correct" and the other one is not; it depends on
prefer Bembidion as a wide or narrow genus...
Yet there is no doubt that universally accepted names lists for the
of biodiversity informatics would facilitate a lot of things. So why not
specific term in order to avoid confusion, - e.g. "standard names",
"keynames", or whatever you prefer.
Such names would have to be carefully checked for Code-compliance, and
should represent current systematic concepts as far as possible
staying on a moderate "conservative" side, especially in context with
splitting of traditional genera).
In other words, we would have 3 categories of names that should not be
1.) Available/ validly published names, i.e., all names that are Code
compliant incl. synonyms, etc.
2.) Valid/ accepted names, i.e., all names that are accepted as valid by
individual taxonomists/ representing alternative classifications.
3.) "Standard names" (or whatever term you prefer), i.e., all names that
recommended for biodiversity informatics purposes; names that would
facilitate globally compatible "species banks", on-line species
google searches, etc.
Such lists (with yearly updates) could be organized by GBIF partners, -
actually, they are already offered for several groups of organisms (e.g.,
Well, these are just some musings that came to my mind while finishing the
second edition of the carabid beetle checklist.
I do feel enthusiastic about the chance to contribute to the CoL
of Life) but the names I can provide should not be misunderstood as
disapproving alternative taxonomic concepts...
Buero/ Verlag fuer Faunistik und Umweltplanung
More information about the Taxacom