[Taxacom] Towards a consensus higher classification of organisms (was: List of Orders of the world), misspellings, etc...

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Fri Jun 13 20:50:40 CDT 2008


Dear Brian, all,

I have no problems with you and others pointing out issues with my IRMNG
list and indeed, have become several orders of magnitude more conscious
of them since initiating this thread. Also I now feel that the "working"
higher taxonomy in IRMNG can be significantly cleaned up, so maybe it
was a mistake to expose it so early, before I have really focussed
(focused?) any significant attention on it; on the other hand I do not
mind if it prompts discussion of the bigger issues too. I cannot speak
personally for errors in the SN2000 data or the systematic arrangement
of the taxa therein, but my impression is that in general, that author
makes a good job of crediting her sources.

In respect of David's email, there are many topics for consideration but
one thing I would particularly like to see is a mechanism for
centralised correction of errors and inconsistencies in names and the
cited authorities. At present I have made a few corrections in IRMNG and
am likely to make many more, however in an ideal world a correction made
in a central hub is much more useful than the same correction made
(erratically) out at the end of one or more spokes (so to speak).

I am interested in Rod's and others' comments about copyright/IP issues
with respect to lists of names, especially since species names from the
Catalogue of Life form a large basis of my own list, and of course these
names themselves originate from multiple providers, a significant
fraction of whom are probably on this list. I have no wish to impinge on
the rights of the original list creators (especially those, such as
Species Fungorum, contributing to this discussion), so I would welcome
advice from (e.g.) Paul as to what his understanding is of the ability,
and/or desirability, of end users such as myself incorporating
SF-derived names into new lists. In fact I did seek and obtain
permission from a number of individual list authors (SN2000, Index
Nominum Genericorum, the New Zealand SP2000 list editor, FishBase,
WoRMS, and various others), however did not seek such permission in the
case of the COL names - possibly I need to do so, and the same with
taxonomic hierarchies that come with copyright notices all over them?

Regards - Tony


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of B.J.Tindall
Sent: Friday, 13 June 2008 9:39 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Towards a consensus higher classification of
organisms (was: List of Orders of the world), misspellings, etc...

Sorry to be rather blunt Tony, but most sites 
dealing with prokaryote names usually fall faul 
of the same problems. The strange thing is that 
prokaryote names, like the names of viruses are 
governed by Codes of Nomenclature that actually 
operate a formal system or registration and for 
the recent names  the publication listing all new 
"registrations" is in the Internet. My 
information is that all relevant publications 
back to 1980 (beyond actually) will be available 
in about the next 6 months. In such a system the 
names have usually been verified for Code 
compliance at the time of original registration. 
Going through parts of the SN200 site I was left 
wondering where some of the names were coming 
from and I certainly picked up some rather strange contradictions.
Brian







More information about the Taxacom mailing list