[Taxacom] Towards a consensus higher classification oforganisms (was: List of Orders of the world), misspellings, etc...
p.kirk at cabi.org
Sat Jun 21 03:12:56 CDT 2008
At the risk of being accused of repeating myself ... Index Fungorum has an active policy of linking names to digitized literature in the form of simple jpg images, via resolvable URLs, which any browser can display without the need to use obstrusive 'plug-ins'. Cyberliber has about 150,000 such jpg files and IF links to about 30,000 of these which are pages where names have been published. A further 250,000 names have links to page images from the scanned printed indexes which have documented names of fungi for the last 100 or so years.
JSTOR is 'closed' because it's subscription only so not much use to most of the world; BHL has an over-engineered human interface for fingers on keyboards and no URLs which simply resolve to a jpg.
If we keep it simple it is a rather trival exercise to add links to literature ... if we make it whizzy for the human at the keyboard it becomes either a 'non trival exercise' or it's impossible.
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Roderic Page
Sent: Fri 20/06/2008 11:27
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Towards a consensus higher classification oforganisms (was: List of Orders of the world), misspellings, etc...
One obstacle to points 1 and 2 below is the accessibility of the
literature. Existing efforts to catalogue names (such as the Catalogue
of Life) treat literature as a second class citizen. I think the value
of such efforts would be greatly enhanced if the names were linked to
literature so that anybody could check the original spelling, etc.
Of course, this depends on having that literature in digital form. But
it also depends on being able to find that digital version of the
publication. Journal publishers, archival projects such as JSTOR, and
institutional repositories are continually increasing the number of
taxonomic publications that are online (not to mention BHL's
However, there is a disconnect between how many nomenclatural
databases treat literature (often referring not to the article, but to
a specific page in an article) and how digital publishers refer to
articles (the article itself is the smallest unit).
This means that Anders Silfvergrip's (http://markmail.org/message/27jw6g4owltpd252
) attempt to find out the largest number of names described in a
single paper using the Catalogue of Life was doomed from the start.
Many reference in CoL are to pages within an article, not to the
enclosing article itself.
Hence, an unintended consequence of how many nomenclatural databases
handle literature is that linking to the burgeoning digital literature
is going to be a non trivial exercise.
We don't make things easy for ourselves...
> Why not expand those hardly attractive report-error-to-the-webmaster
> functions by displaying review details received from expert users. I
> imagine such annotations could enormously increase the credibility
> of online biodiversity information projects.
> 1) Source verification: spelling of name, authorship and date have
> been compared with the original publication. Show name of person(s)
> who did the check.
> 2) nomenclatural status assessment: available/ validly published or
> not, with annotations on details (reasons for unavailability,
> homonymy, etc.). Name of person(s) who did the check.
> 3) taxonomic status: valid/ accepted or not, subjective synonymy,
> hints on alternative classifications (if needed), etc. Name of
> expert(s) who provided the information.
> In this way, experts could take the control and show responsibility
> for data, - an important step from more or less anonymous machine
> work to expert controlled work, IMHO.
> Wolfgang Lorenz
> D-82327 Tutzing, Germany
> -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
> Von: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> An: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Verschickt: Sa., 14. Jun. 2008, 9:10
> Thema: Re: [Taxacom] Towards a consensus higher classification of
> organisms (was: List of Orders of the world), misspellings, etc...
> Brian Tindall wrote:
>> it is easy to exchange information on the
>> Internet it is problematic to work out what is
>> reliable. A quick search of iSpecies, for example
>> for "Jonesia" gives me reference to a prokaryote
>> name, pictures of flowers and most references
>> listed are to the prokaryote taxon - Jonesia
>> Brady, 1866 is also an ostracod, according to
>> ION. We all know that curating even a
>> nomenclatural data base is expensive and time
>> consuming, and this rises exponentially as the
>> links to other data sets increases.
> Inadvertently I am sure, you have hit on precisely one problem for
> IRMNG (and the super-mega-system of which David is dreaming - in the
> nicest possible way) is able to address - that of disambiguation of
> genus level homonyms, with associated (if sometimes imperfect) higher
> taxonomy information, and habitat/extant flags to boot. If you type
> exactly that query into IRMNG, i.e. genus = jonesia, as of now you
> get a range of all (or at least) most "Jonesia" options, plus a swag
> near matches for good measure:
> Genus name entered: jonesia
> (Genus ... Family ... source ... Kingdom-Order ... is
> Jonesia Brady, 1866 (2)
> Bythocytheridae SN2000 Animalia-Podocopida
> Jonesia M. Bizot, R.B. Pierrot & T. Pocs, 1974 (0)
> Funariaceae Index Nominum Genericorum Plantae-Funariales S
> Jonesia Roxburgh, 1795 (12)
> Fabaceae CoL2006 Plantae-Fabales
> Jonesia (1)
> Jonesiaceae SN2000/Garrity et al., 2001 Bacteria-Bacteria
> Genus nearest matches: Jonesea (Animalia-Strophomenida) , Jonesina
> (Animalia-Palaeocopida) , Onesia (Animalia-Diptera)
> Other genus near matches: Jainesia R.G. Fragoso & R. Ciferri, 1925
> (Fungi-Hyphomycetes (unallocated)) , Jamesia C.G.D. Nees in
> Wied-Neuwied, 1840 (Plantae-Asterales) , Jamesia J. Torrey & A. Gray,
> 1840 (Plantae-Rosales) , Jamesia Rafinesque, 1832 (Plantae-Fabales) ,
> Jamesia (Animalia-Coleoptera) , Janasia Rafinesque, 1838
> (Plantae-Scrophulariales) , Janischia Grunow in Van Heurck, 1883
> (Plantae-Bacillariophyceae (unallocated)) , Jansia Penzig, 1899
> (Fungi-Phallales) , Janusia A.H.L. Jussieu ex Endlicher, 1840
> (Plantae-Polygalales) , Janusia (Animalia-Araneae) , Jensia B.G.
> Baldwin, 1999 (Plantae-Asterales) , Joannesia Vellozo, 1798
> (Plantae-Euphorbiales) , Joannisia (Animalia-Diptera) , Jonesius
> Sankarankutty 1962 (Animalia-Decapoda) , Joosia G.K.W.H. Karsten, 1859
> Now some of this may have errors in the higher classification, as we
> have established, but probably nothing too mission-critical.
>> From the above you can either follow links to the included species
>> as I
> have been able to locate them thus far, and search on these (e.g. on
> iSpecies or whatever is your taste), or maybe search on your preferred
> instance of "Jonesia" *plus* the authority, or the genus *plus* (e.g.)
> Kingdom or order), any of which is better than searching on the genus
> name alone. Also (omitted from the above for clarity), IRMNG will tell
> you that of these, only the first is a marine genus, and that all are
> extant but that nos. 1 and 3 also have fossil representatives.
> The key point of all the above is that without IRMNG, or something
> does an equivalent job, there is no one place that all of this
> information PLUS associated classifications is pulled together. In
> instance, Jonesia #s 1, 3 and 4 do occur in the Catalogue of Life (we
> got lucky this time), but without any associated genus authors, while
> Jonesia #2 does not. Jonesia #s 2 and 3 occur in Index Nominum
> Genericorum, but #s 1 and 4 do not (since they are not within that
> list's scope). Jonesia #1 contains 2 species currently in IRMNG, one
> which occurs in the Cataloge of Life and the other does not (it is in
> the NW Atlantic Marine Species Register held at VLIZ, of which the
> custodians graciously gave me a copy, along with 17 of their other
> Of course the situation will be repeated again with the 18 "near
> Jonesias identified by my TAXAMATCH algorithm, which you might also
> meant if you were not a very good typist.
> By interrogating the species level as well, an agency such as OBIS
> stimulus for the conception behind this work) will also be able to
> that "Jonesia simplex" is marine (an ostracod), therefore its
> distribution data fall within their remit, while "Jonesia
> confusa" (the
> higher plant) is not, from the name alone, by a simple web or machine
> level query.
> This power (for want of a better word) is what continues to make me
> believe in the usefulness of bringing these resources together into a
> seamless (real or virtual) collection, for single point of query as
> as compilation of whatever ancillary info might be useful for a
> particular requirement. Will the EOL, or GBIF, do this for us in the
> future? Possibly, but not today at any rate. Can we do it better?
> Undoubtedly. Who should really be doing it? I'm not sure, actually...
> Hope this helps give a concrete illustration of where I am coming
> how far I have currently got, and (probably) also the distance still
> left to travel.
> Regards - Tony
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle. Klicken Sie auf
> AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Professor of Taxonomy
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
More information about the Taxacom