[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 39, Issue 12

mahesh gokhale mvgokhale20011 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 17 09:19:44 CDT 2009


please let me know about distribution of morinda pubescens in the world                                                                    





--- On Wed, 6/17/09, taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> From: taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Taxacom Digest, Vol 39, Issue 12
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 1:44 PM
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
> to
>     taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>     http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
> to
>     taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>     taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. looking for a paper (Vitor Fernandes
> Oliveira de Miranda)
>    2. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy
> (Peter DeVries)
>    3. Re: Melilotus albus and officinalis
> (Frederick W. Schueler)
>    4. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Lee
> Belbin)
>    5. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Tony.Rees at csiro.au)
>    6. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Bob
> Mesibov)
>    7. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy
> (Donat Agosti)
>    8. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy
> (Donat Agosti)
>    9. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Bob
> Mesibov)
>   10. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Donat Agosti)
>   11. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Peter
> DeVries)
>   12. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Donat Agosti)
>   13. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Dean
> Pentcheff)
>   14. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Gurcharan
> Singh-satyam)
>   15. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Bob Mesibov)
>   16. Re: decline and fall of taxonomy (Donat Agosti)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:25:26 -0300
> From: "Vitor Fernandes Oliveira de Miranda" <vmiranda at umc.br>
> Subject: [Taxacom] looking for a paper
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <6247B1779C8DFD46B87161753AE0889764328C at Mailex.umc.br>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
>  
> 
> Would anyone have access to this paper in PDF? Could send
> it?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> V?tor.
> 
>  
> 
> Kumazawa, M. 1967. An experimental study on the seedling of
> Utricularia pilosa Makino. Phytomorphology 17:494-498.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:26:46 -0500
> From: Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: Fabian Haas <fhaas at icipe.org>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID:
>     <3833bf630906161526q4b488e4bh68309a1aebf5465f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Note about modernization:
> *LifeDesks*  http://lifedesks.org/
> 
> Wouldn't something like this dramatically improve
> productivity and the
> accessibility of taxonomic revisions?
> 
> There are a number of high ranking journals that exist in
> electronic form.
> Including most of the BMC and PLOS journals.
> 
> Why has taxonomy been so slow to adopt these kinds of
> changes?
> 
> <http://lifedesks.org/>- Pete
> 
> 
> > >
> > > fred.
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >             
> Bishops Mills Natural History Centre
> > >           
> Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
> > >         RR#2
> Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
> > >      on the Smiths Falls Limestone
> Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
> > >        (613)258-3107
> <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >
> > > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be
> searched with either of
> > these methods:
> > >
> > > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> > mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> **********************************************************
> > FabianHaas2 at gmx.net,
> fhaas at icipe.org,
> Extension -2052
> >
> > www.icipe.org
> > www.earwigs-online.de :: The Site on Earwig Biology
> > www.fabianhaas.de :: Personal Photo Website
> >
> > Dr. Fabian Haas
> > ICIPE - African Insect Science for Food and Health
> > Duduville Campus, Kasarani
> > P.O. Box 30772 - 00100
> > N A I R O B I
> > Kenya
> >
> > Telephone No.   +254 (0)20 8632000
> > Fax No.         +254
> (0)20 8632001 or 8632002
> > Cell Phone      +254 (0)728 132868
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched
> with either of these
> > methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> > mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:10:09 -0400
> From: "Frederick W. Schueler" <bckcdb at istar.ca>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Melilotus albus and officinalis
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <4A382651.2020104 at istar.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
> 
> Alec McClay wrote:
> 
> > 
> >  the consensus still seems to be that these are
> good species, not 
> > just colour forms - I've never seen any reports of
> intermediates or 
> > of interbreeding.
> 
> * and as a zoologist, I've noticed differences in apparent
> vulnerability 
> to herbivory:
> 
> ==========================================================
> 11 August 1994
> ==========================================================
> Canada: Ontario: York Region: Toronto: base Leslie Street
> Spit. 30M/11, 
> UTM 17TPU33 349.5  340 43.64875N 79.32645W. 
> TIME: 1035-1146. AIR TEMP: 
> 20.5, light overcast. HABITAT: piles of rubble in
> fill-built land, Salix 
> brush. OBSERVER: Frederick W. Schueler, Aleta Karstad
> Schueler. 
> 94/148/h, Melilotus officinalis (Yellow Sweet-clover)
> (Plant). 1 herb, 
> in bloom, prey of predator, specimen. small patch among
> fields of M. 
> albus, heavily defoliated.  White species not
> defoliated in this way.
> 
> 
> And later that month at the Toronto Zoo: "Noteable
> observation was that 
> the Sweet Clover (& the only tall herb) in the Llama
> enclosure was all 
> Melilotus officinalis, in contrast to other stands we have
> seen here, 
> which were all vastly dominated by the white-flowered
> species."
> 
> (I'd have more, perhaps, but M. officinalis isn't
> widespread around home).
> 
> fred.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>             Bishops Mills
> Natural History Centre
>           Frederick W. Schueler
> & Aleta Karstad
>        RR#2 Bishops Mills,
> Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
>     on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N
> 75* 42'W
>       (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at
> istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:34:36 +1000
> From: "Lee Belbin" <leebel at netspace.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <008601c9eefc$8a32bcc0$9e983640$@net.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   
> charset="us-ascii"
> 
> I fully agree with Pete. I occasionally use the following
> example to suggest
> that it is impossible to determine how data may be used
> (effectively)...
> 
> W.K. de la Mare, (1997). Abrupt mid-twentieth-century
> decline in Antarctic
> sea-ice extent from whaling records. Nature, 389, 57-60.
> 
> Bill did estimates of the northern most extent of sea-ice
> in the Antarctic
> based on whaling records of the 19th and 20th century.
> 
> My point is - would the whalers have figured out that their
> records would be
> used to detect climate change? Not b likely.
> 
> Lee
> 
> Lee Belbin
> TDWG Secretariat
> 
> ---
> The zero sum mentality is not helpful. Taxonomy needs to
> fix itself, not
> point fingers. Discoveries in Astronomy have helped answer
> basic questions
> in physics, including those of Einstein.
> 
> We are also under constant threat of an asteroid or deep
> space gamma ray
> burst that would devastate all life on Earth.
> 
> I think that taxonomy will get increased funding when it
> starts operating
> more like the other biological sciences.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> - Pete
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:43:21 +1000
> From: <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: <leebel at netspace.net.au>,
> <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID:
>     <C2994967ABB5D54BB013821E4ABA60E1031FC01EA5 at exvic-mbx03.nexus.csiro.au>
>     
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Also a prime candidate for a phrase I find useful in many
> data management activities:
> 
> "collect once, use many times"...
> 
>    analogous to "enter once, use many times"
> in database design speak.
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> Tony Rees
> Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
> CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric?Research,
> GPO Box 1538,
> Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
> Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
> Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
> e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/ 
> Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
> Personal info:?http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Lee Belbin
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 1:35 PM
> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> 
> I fully agree with Pete. I occasionally use the following
> example to suggest
> that it is impossible to determine how data may be used
> (effectively)...
> 
> W.K. de la Mare, (1997). Abrupt mid-twentieth-century
> decline in Antarctic
> sea-ice extent from whaling records. Nature, 389, 57-60.
> 
> Bill did estimates of the northern most extent of sea-ice
> in the Antarctic
> based on whaling records of the 19th and 20th century.
> 
> My point is - would the whalers have figured out that their
> records would be
> used to detect climate change? Not b likely.
> 
> Lee
> 
> Lee Belbin
> TDWG Secretariat
> 
> ---
> The zero sum mentality is not helpful. Taxonomy needs to
> fix itself, not
> point fingers. Discoveries in Astronomy have helped answer
> basic questions
> in physics, including those of Einstein.
> 
> We are also under constant threat of an asteroid or deep
> space gamma ray
> burst that would devastate all life on Earth.
> 
> I think that taxonomy will get increased funding when it
> starts operating
> more like the other biological sciences.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> - Pete
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> either of these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as: 
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:47:45 +1000
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: pete.devries at gmail.com
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <20090617134745.89e93de2.mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Peter de Vries wrote:
> 
> "Wouldn't something like this [LifeDesks] dramatically
> improve productivity and the accessibility of taxonomic
> revisions?"
> 
> Dramatically? That depends on what the slowest steps are in
> the taxonomic process. If those slow steps are collecting
> and documenting specimens, comparing specimens, looking for
> specimen characters to assist identification and
> classification, testing the usefulness of those characters,
> etc., then no, there won't be a dramatic improvement in
> productivity. If the slowest steps are going to the library
> to look up paper references, corresponding with colleagues
> and travelling to look at types, then the answer is
> 'Maybe'.
> 
> The major limiting factor in taxonomic productivity is the
> number of taxonomic workers, not how fast they work. This
> thread is really about the decline and fall of taxonomists.
> If we want a dramatic improvement in productivity, we need
> to greatly increase the number of taxonomic workers who
> aren't taxonomists. I've opened a discussion group on how
> this might be done:
> 
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/open-taxonomy-projects?hl=en
> 
> Please consider joining the group only if you want to work
> towards that goal. If you think it's a dumb idea, please
> argue your case on TAXACOM.
> -- 
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:33:15 +0430
> From: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Cc: leebel at netspace.net.au
> Message-ID: <C3287741152947CEA391B0B2DAF267F3 at bern>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> This issues "collect once, use many times" lead to the OECD
> principles and
> guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public
> Funding"
> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/61/38500813.pdf 
> 
> So, those disseminating research funds - the science
> ministers of the
> developed nations in this case - realized the huge benefit
> of data being
> using in multiple ways.
> 
> A very straight forward way to implement this in taxonomy
> would be that we
> produce semantically enhanced taxonomic descriptions that
> are linked to the
> underlying data, that is also available. Pyle et al's paper
> in Zootaxa's has
> been the first simple example, Fisher et al in PLoS One
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001787
> another
> and a more advanced by Miller et al
> http://pensoftonline.net/zookeys/index.php/journal/article/view/160
> has
> recently been published in Zookeys with some comments
> http://pensoftonline.net/zookeys/index.php/journal/article/view/210
> .
> 
> Tools to do this are emerging built on mainstream XML mark
> up, like the NLM
> journal archiving and publishing DTD that has been enhanced
> with taxonomic
> elements(http://sourceforge.net/projects/taxpub/
> ). Though in its infancy
> this is joining an increasing number of journals being
> created in XML, and
> would also allow to be archived in PubMed Central
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/  and linked to
> the huge body of literature
> biomedical and life sciences literature, probably one of
> the most secure
> places for longterm availability of publications.
> 
> This also facilitates the discovery of data which is at the
> base of "collect
> once, use many times"
> 
> Donat
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:13 AM
> To: leebel at netspace.net.au;
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> 
> Also a prime candidate for a phrase I find useful in many
> data management
> activities:
> 
> "collect once, use many times"...
> 
>    analogous to "enter once, use many times"
> in database design speak.
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> Tony Rees
> Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
> CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric?Research,
> GPO Box 1538,
> Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
> Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
> Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
> e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/ 
> Biodiversity informatics research activities:
> http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
> Personal
> info:?http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Lee Belbin
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 1:35 PM
> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> 
> I fully agree with Pete. I occasionally use the following
> example to suggest
> that it is impossible to determine how data may be used
> (effectively)...
> 
> W.K. de la Mare, (1997). Abrupt mid-twentieth-century
> decline in Antarctic
> sea-ice extent from whaling records. Nature, 389, 57-60.
> 
> Bill did estimates of the northern most extent of sea-ice
> in the Antarctic
> based on whaling records of the 19th and 20th century.
> 
> My point is - would the whalers have figured out that their
> records would be
> used to detect climate change? Not b likely.
> 
> Lee
> 
> Lee Belbin
> TDWG Secretariat
> 
> ---
> The zero sum mentality is not helpful. Taxonomy needs to
> fix itself, not
> point fingers. Discoveries in Astronomy have helped answer
> basic questions
> in physics, including those of Einstein.
> 
> We are also under constant threat of an asteroid or deep
> space gamma ray
> burst that would devastate all life on Earth.
> 
> I think that taxonomy will get increased funding when it
> starts operating
> more like the other biological sciences.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> - Pete
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> either of these
> methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> either of these
> methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:44:47 +0430
> From: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: "'Bob Mesibov'" <mesibov at southcom.com.au>,
>     <pete.devries at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <96D870317DEB48D7BB481A1A8E4D1E22 at bern>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   
> charset="us-ascii"
> 
> "The major limiting factor in taxonomic productivity is the
> number of
> taxonomic workers, not how fast they work."
> 
> Without having all the data at hand, I would dare to say
> that we get more
> taxonomists working by offering them a first class cyber
> infrastructure:
> Access to complete catalogues, all the literature digitized
> and cross
> referenced and linked to the catalogues, standard visual
> documentation of
> all the taxa and increasingly for any new specimen, DNA
> sequence data, and
> proper descriptions on how to created modern revisions.
> 
> It seems that this set up attracts new people as we observe
> this in the ant
> community and their output, interest of other groups such
> as the CBOL to
> join forces to barcode all the ants of a particular region
> (eg madagascar).
> And it attracts people well beyond the developed world,
> since it allows
> people in the developing world to catch up with the newest
> status in
> taxonomy. Since imaging and DNA sequencing is increasingly
> becoming cheaper,
> there are also discussion that institutions like CBOL might
> do the barcoding
> of any new species for free, or the California Academy of
> Sciences the
> imaging of types and other specimens for those that can not
> produce these
> data by themselves.
> 
> What it means from our taxonomic end is that we really make
> all the data we
> produce discoverable over the Internet, so that they can be
> automatically
> linked, or better submitted to shared databases such as
> Zoobank in Zoology,
> that then can serve as entry point.
> 
> In this respect, the issues is that taxonomists better
> reconsider how they
> work - which at the end is to their own benefit, since it
> saves them a lot
> of time, eg by not having to go to libraries, triaging
> through many type
> specimens, etc.
> 
> Donat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Bob Mesibov
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:18 AM
> To: pete.devries at gmail.com
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> 
> Peter de Vries wrote:
> 
> "Wouldn't something like this [LifeDesks] dramatically
> improve productivity
> and the accessibility of taxonomic revisions?"
> 
> Dramatically? That depends on what the slowest steps are in
> the taxonomic
> process. If those slow steps are collecting and documenting
> specimens,
> comparing specimens, looking for specimen characters to
> assist
> identification and classification, testing the usefulness
> of those
> characters, etc., then no, there won't be a dramatic
> improvement in
> productivity. If the slowest steps are going to the library
> to look up paper
> references, corresponding with colleagues and travelling to
> look at types,
> then the answer is 'Maybe'.
> 
> The major limiting factor in taxonomic productivity is the
> number of
> taxonomic workers, not how fast they work. This thread is
> really about the
> decline and fall of taxonomists. If we want a dramatic
> improvement in
> productivity, we need to greatly increase the number of
> taxonomic workers
> who aren't taxonomists. I've opened a discussion group on
> how this might be
> done:
> 
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/open-taxonomy-projects?hl=en
> 
> Please consider joining the group only if you want to work
> towards that
> goal. If you think it's a dumb idea, please argue your case
> on TAXACOM.
> -- 
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> either of these
> methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:42:04 +1000
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> pete.devries at gmail.com
> Message-ID: <20090617144204.55610d94.mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Donat, your anecdotal evidence that people are attracted to
> certain projects is very interesting. However every review
> of taxonomy I have read in the past 15 years tells me that
> the number of working taxonomists is decreasing. What solid
> evidence is there that the number of working taxonomists has
> been increased by the availability of digital tools? Or are
> you simply hopeful that this will happen?
> 
> And once attracted, how are new taxonomists going to make a
> living as professionals? Is the number of job openings for
> taxonomists increasing?
> 
> Note that I am talking about taxonomy in the traditional
> sense: the discovery, documentation and classification of
> life. If you believe that taxonomy includes gathering up COI
> barcodes and building trees with them without careful study
> of the whole organisms, let alone formally naming and
> describing them, then we have another difference of
> opinion.
> -- 
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:30:36 +0430
> From: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Cc: pete.devries at gmail.com,
> 'Bob Mesibov' <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Message-ID: <83887AB9E7724EC78A1E86D6989AAB03 at bern>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   
> charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hi Bob
> 
> Ok, I will see, that I can produce some data from our
> databases covering
> ants, and may be some other hymenoptera taxa.
> 
> Your question though raises an issue, that I am sure has
> also been covered
> many time, what is the relevant figure to look at.
> Taxonomists or
> descriptions, or expertise. At the e-ebiosphere meeting in
> London, there was
> a figure of EU600M circulating as the budget of the natural
> history museums
> in the Eurpean Union. This is not a small figure, and would
> say that there
> is a considerable amount of money in taxonomy, unless our
> community
> frivolously misspends (from a
> taxonomists-wanting-to-describe-taxa point of
> view). And that is just the European Union.
> 
> Let me get some "hard" data from our databases so we have
> at least something
> to go from anecdotal to less anecdotal.
> 
> Donat
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Mesibov [mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au]
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:12 AM
> To: Donat Agosti
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> pete.devries at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> 
> Donat, your anecdotal evidence that people are attracted to
> certain projects
> is very interesting. However every review of taxonomy I
> have read in the
> past 15 years tells me that the number of working
> taxonomists is decreasing.
> What solid evidence is there that the number of working
> taxonomists has been
> increased by the availability of digital tools? Or are you
> simply hopeful
> that this will happen?
> 
> And once attracted, how are new taxonomists going to make a
> living as
> professionals? Is the number of job openings for
> taxonomists increasing?
> 
> Note that I am talking about taxonomy in the traditional
> sense: the
> discovery, documentation and classification of life. If you
> believe that
> taxonomy includes gathering up COI barcodes and building
> trees with them
> without careful study of the whole organisms, let alone
> formally naming and
> describing them, then we have another difference of
> opinion.
> -- 
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:12:53 -0500
> From: Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID:
>     <3833bf630906162212med77f6et50f343474d2f7b5a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> >What solid evidence is there that the number of working
> taxonomists has
> been increased by the availability of digital tools? >Or
> are you simply
> hopeful that this will happen?
> I am a firm believer in "if you build it, they will come"
> 
> Yes, there will be false starts and mistakes, but we can
> all learn along the
> way.
> 
> The easy availability of information might attract new
> people and new
> interest to taxonomy.
> 
> Either way, complaining has not appeared to improve funding
> so we need to
> try a new approach.
> 
> A useful first step is to determine if there is a way to
> allow peer-reviewed
> LifeDesks to be considered the same as a printed
> publication. Otherwise, the
> very people that we would like to contribute will have no
> professional
> reason to do so.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> - Pete
> 
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>wrote:
> 
> > Donat, your anecdotal evidence that people are
> attracted to certain
> > projects is very interesting. However every review of
> taxonomy I have read
> > in the past 15 years tells me that the number of
> working taxonomists is
> > decreasing. What solid evidence is there that the
> number of working
> > taxonomists has been increased by the availability of
> digital tools? Or are
> > you simply hopeful that this will happen?
> >
> > And once attracted, how are new taxonomists going to
> make a living as
> > professionals? Is the number of job openings for
> taxonomists increasing?
> >
> > Note that I am talking about taxonomy in the
> traditional sense: the
> > discovery, documentation and classification of life.
> If you believe that
> > taxonomy includes gathering up COI barcodes and
> building trees with them
> > without careful study of the whole organisms, let
> alone formally naming and
> > describing them, then we have another difference of
> opinion.
> > --
> > Dr Robert Mesibov
> > Honorary Research Associate
> > Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> > School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> > Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> > (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> > Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:48:52 +0430
> From: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Cc: 'Peter DeVries' <pete.devries at gmail.com>,   
> 'Bob Mesibov'
>     <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Message-ID: <E89894106FAE4012A05444A3C6EA4E8C at bern>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   
> charset="us-ascii"
> 
> "A useful first step is to determine if there is a way to
> allow
> peer-reviewed LifeDesks to be considered the same as a
> printed publication.
> Otherwise, the very people that we would like to contribute
> will have no
> professional reason to do so."
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Two points: See the discussion on ICZN listserves regarding
> online
> publications. This will provide you a (non-)answer to it,
> but at least some
> indication where this debate stands.
> 
>  
> 
> I would get away from LifeDesks but discuss this in a much
> more generic way
> to come up with guidelines and best practices that would be
> adopted by the
> ICZN and the community. LifeDesks, Scratchpads you name it
> might or might
> not fulfill these criteria and might or might not be
> adopted and used by the
> taxonomists.
> 
> The important element is to discuss the electronic
> publications, which
> should not be done in a gutenbergian sense, that is with
> having one static
> web page in mind.
> 
>  
> 
> Donat
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Peter DeVries [mailto:pete.devries at gmail.com]
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:43 AM
> To: Bob Mesibov
> Cc: Donat Agosti; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> 
>  
> 
> >What solid evidence is there that the number of working
> taxonomists has
> been increased by the availability of digital tools? >Or
> are you simply
> hopeful that this will happen?
> 
>  
> 
> I am a firm believer in "if you build it, they will come"
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, there will be false starts and mistakes, but we can
> all learn along the
> way.
> 
>  
> 
> The easy availability of information might attract new
> people and new
> interest to taxonomy.
> 
>  
> 
> Either way, complaining has not appeared to improve funding
> so we need to
> try a new approach.
> 
>  
> 
> A useful first step is to determine if there is a way to
> allow peer-reviewed
> LifeDesks to be considered the same as a printed
> publication. Otherwise, the
> very people that we would like to contribute will have no
> professional
> reason to do so.
> 
>  
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
>  
> 
> - Pete
> 
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> wrote:
> 
> Donat, your anecdotal evidence that people are attracted to
> certain projects
> is very interesting. However every review of taxonomy I
> have read in the
> past 15 years tells me that the number of working
> taxonomists is decreasing.
> What solid evidence is there that the number of working
> taxonomists has been
> increased by the availability of digital tools? Or are you
> simply hopeful
> that this will happen?
> 
> And once attracted, how are new taxonomists going to make a
> living as
> professionals? Is the number of job openings for
> taxonomists increasing?
> 
> Note that I am talking about taxonomy in the traditional
> sense: the
> discovery, documentation and classification of life. If you
> believe that
> taxonomy includes gathering up COI barcodes and building
> trees with them
> without careful study of the whole organisms, let alone
> formally naming and
> describing them, then we have another difference of
> opinion.
> 
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:26:20 -0700
> From: Dean Pentcheff <pentcheff at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Cc: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Message-ID:
>     <1ff243760906162326y6b33c014s87ddcc3a73cbc704 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> I'll chime in here in support of Donat.
> 
> I'm not sure he meant that the increasing digitization of
> taxonomy is
> causing (or will necessarily cause) an increase in the
> number of
> taxonomists. What it will do is slow the decline and
> prevent the
> effective death of taxonomy (except as a gentleman and
> gentlewoman's
> hobby).
> 
> A very telling remark was made by an (actually the only)
> undergraduate
> at a recent small working group crustacean taxonomists.
> After hearing
> us thinking about and muttering about beginning to tackle
> digitizing
> access to the literature, he said (paraphrasing): "You
> folks should
> realize the importance of the decision you're making here.
> If you
> don't get the literature online, no one in my generation
> will go into
> this science. We aren't going to spend the better part of a
> Master's
> and Ph.D. program amassing the paper literature for a
> group. We'll
> just do some other kind of biology."
> 
> Digitizing this science won't guarantee it will thrive.
> Failing to
> will guarantee it will die.
> 
> -Dean
> -- 
> Dean Pentcheff
> pentcheff at gmail.com
> 
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Bob Mesibov<mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> wrote:
> > Donat, your anecdotal evidence that people are
> attracted to certain projects is very interesting. However
> every review of taxonomy I have read in the past 15 years
> tells me that the number of working taxonomists is
> decreasing. What solid evidence is there that the number of
> working taxonomists has been increased by the availability
> of digital tools? Or are you simply hopeful that this will
> happen?
> >
> > And once attracted, how are new taxonomists going to
> make a living as professionals? Is the number of job
> openings for taxonomists increasing?
> >
> > Note that I am talking about taxonomy in the
> traditional sense: the discovery, documentation and
> classification of life. If you believe that taxonomy
> includes gathering up COI barcodes and building trees with
> them without careful study of the whole organisms, let alone
> formally naming and describing them, then we have another
> difference of opinion.
> > --
> > Dr Robert Mesibov
> > Honorary Research Associate
> > Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> > School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> > Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> > (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> > Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched
> with either of these methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> ?site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom ?your search
> terms here
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:11:10 +0530
> From: "Gurcharan Singh-satyam" <singhg at satyam.net.in>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <608825C93EC246088649356F8E710D62 at gurcharan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
> charset="iso-8859-1";
>     reply-type=original
> 
> For last few days there has been a lot of discussion on
> this topic. Nearly 
> 33 years back in 1976 (when number of taxonomists could be
> counted on 
> fingers) I had described a new species from Kashmir,
> Tragopogon kashmirianus 
> G. Singh, an allotetraploid, a possible natural cross
> between diploid T. 
> dubius and T. porrifolius, quite distinct from American T.
> mirus another 
> allotetraploid hybrid between these two species, always
> wondering how can 
> same parental species give rise to two different species. I
> must have spent 
> a few hundred rupees to to establish and publish this new
> species. 32 years 
> later in 2006  E. V.  Mavrodiev, I Navchoo, D E
> Soltis & P S Soltis 
> presented their work at Botany 2006 of Botanical Society of
> America based on 
> molecular studies of the complex. They investicated ITS,
> ETS and plastid 
> sequence data to reach a conclusion, that solved my
> question: that T. 
> kashmirianus is quite distinct from T mirus and T. dubius
> of Kashmir is 
> distinct from T. dubius of America. They must have spent
> thousands of 
> dollars over a longer period of time, to reach this
> conclusion. Are these 
> and other workers investigating molecular data not
> taxonomists? A simple 
> look at the number of papers published during last few
> years, as listed at 
> APG website is sufficient to reinforce the fact that
> taxonomy is fast 
> developing and not falling down. Imagine the amount of
> funds being spent in 
> various labs to investigate molecular phylogeny. It is a
> great jump from a 
> simple microscope, hand lens, fresh and herbarium
> specimens. Who says 
> taxonomy is declining. It has evolved to include and
> integrate other fields 
> of biology. Let us not again get lost in the distinction
> (debate originated 
> in middle of last century, but died down in 12-15 years) of
> classical and 
> modern taxonomy. Taxonomy is always taxonomy. It is fast
> evolving and 
> keeping pace with other fields of science.
> 
> Gurcharan Singh
> Department of Botany
> SGTB Khalsa College
> University of Delhi
> INDIA
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bob Mesibov" <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> To: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
> Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>;
> <pete.devries at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> 
> 
> > Donat, your anecdotal evidence that people are
> attracted to certain 
> > projects is very interesting. However every review of
> taxonomy I have read 
> > in the past 15 years tells me that the number of
> working taxonomists is 
> > decreasing. What solid evidence is there that the
> number of working 
> > taxonomists has been increased by the availability of
> digital tools? Or 
> > are you simply hopeful that this will happen?
> >
> > And once attracted, how are new taxonomists going to
> make a living as 
> > professionals? Is the number of job openings for
> taxonomists increasing?
> >
> > Note that I am talking about taxonomy in the
> traditional sense: the 
> > discovery, documentation and classification of life.
> If you believe that 
> > taxonomy includes gathering up COI barcodes and
> building trees with them 
> > without careful study of the whole organisms, let
> alone formally naming 
> > and describing them, then we have another difference
> of opinion.
> > -- 
> > Dr Robert Mesibov
> > Honorary Research Associate
> > Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> > School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> > Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> > (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> > Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched
> with either of 
> > these methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as: 
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your
> search terms here 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:06:40 +1000
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: Dean Pentcheff <pentcheff at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <20090617170640.f67be360.mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Hi, Dean.
> 
> I'm not sure what you've said supports Donat. Slowing the
> decline of a professional discipline, or preventing it from
> dying altogether, isn't the same as revitalising it and
> increasing the number of its professional workers.
> 
> But digitisation is not only a good idea, it is absolutely
> *essential* if taxonomy is to transform itself. For a very
> long time taxonomy has been, and still is, something mainly
> done by institution-based professionals. That needs to
> change. A great deal (not all, but a lot) of the
> hand-wringing about the decline of taxonomy is actually
> despair at the prospects for institution-based professionals
> in future. As I've said before, this is confusing
> taxonomists with taxonomy. The fundamental unit of taxonomy
> isn't a person, it's a taxonomic action, which in the broad
> sense includes identification as well as publication.
> 
> There is no reason why Web-based communities of
> professionals, amateurs and other volunteers cannot generate
> taxonomic actions: correct identifications, and
> Code-compliant, high-quality publications. The Google Groups
> discussion calls this 'open taxonomy', but you could also
> call it 'distributed taxonomy'. Digitisation and good
> project management are prerequisites. The biggest obstacle
> I'm seeing at the moment is the entrenched attitude that
> 'taxonomy' somehow equates to 'professional taxonomists'.
> 
> Fewer professionals could mean increased output, if those
> professionals are willing to participate in projects that
> use the enormous human resources online.
> -- 
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:43:50 +0430
> From: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Cc: 'Bob Mesibov' <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Message-ID: <9E85E563E23D46A98CA1A0E378B50C25 at bern>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   
> charset="us-ascii"
> 
> I am not a taxonomy conservationist, nor am I interested to
> be a taxonomist
> if this is means to belong to a very specific breed. I am
> rather want to
> know what's out there, and let others participate in the
> fantastic diversity
> there is.
> 
> I also see digitization to have two elements. The change
> from analog to
> digital, or Gutbenberg to Semantic Web is like a chemical
> reaction, in this
> case one that releases a lot of energy, since it is going
> from a high energy
> (amount of energy needed to create knowledge) to one a low
> energy status.
> Energy would represent the time needed to collect all your
> exisiting data
> and then disseminate/publish it. Thus, if you have all the
> publications,
> specimens, DNA sequences you name it at your fingertip,
> then you do not
> painstakingly have to collate them. Same, if you have a
> mechanism to produce
> descriptions straight out of your databases, with little
> copy paste, then
> you are much faster, and have more time for scientific
> discovery. But, as
> many of the chemical reaction, that is the activation
> energy that is a
> factor assuring that most of the world is not exploding and
> ending up at the
> lowest possible energy level.... Of course this also means
> different kind of
> infrastructure, ie IT. But this, unlike libraries need only
> once be
> populated and thus an enormous amount of costs can be
> saved.
> 
> And this latter activation energy is where we stand now. We
> need a new
> infrastructure and we need content. Infrastrucure is being
> build like crazy
> so it is more of an adoption of existing tools to our
> purposes. There is a
> lot of money spend in this area, both in the private as
> well as in the
> public sector. And if we would talk to each other, we could
> probably get a
> really good deal for each of us.
> Content is more the issue: How is going to do this? The
> longer the more we
> discover how expensive it is to make sense of published
> publications so
> machines can read and exploit them. The change to sematic
> Web is made, once
> we do not have to read single PDFs anymore, but the content
> can be
> extracted, mined, etc. So, who is doing that? And why are
> we not avoiding
> this altogether by switching to ways of communication of
> our science that is
> immediately accessible to anybody? There are some
> guidelines on how this
> might happen from institutions like TDWG or GBIF, but it
> needs also our
> publishers that think more innovatively, and not least
> ourselves that think
> about the option we have once we have such tools.
> 
> Donat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Bob Mesibov
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 11:37 AM
> To: Dean Pentcheff
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] decline and fall of taxonomy
> 
> Hi, Dean.
> 
> I'm not sure what you've said supports Donat. Slowing the
> decline of a
> professional discipline, or preventing it from dying
> altogether, isn't the
> same as revitalising it and increasing the number of its
> professional
> workers.
> 
> But digitisation is not only a good idea, it is absolutely
> *essential* if
> taxonomy is to transform itself. For a very long time
> taxonomy has been, and
> still is, something mainly done by institution-based
> professionals. That
> needs to change. A great deal (not all, but a lot) of the
> hand-wringing
> about the decline of taxonomy is actually despair at the
> prospects for
> institution-based professionals in future. As I've said
> before, this is
> confusing taxonomists with taxonomy. The fundamental unit
> of taxonomy isn't
> a person, it's a taxonomic action, which in the broad sense
> includes
> identification as well as publication.
> 
> There is no reason why Web-based communities of
> professionals, amateurs and
> other volunteers cannot generate taxonomic actions: correct
> identifications,
> and Code-compliant, high-quality publications. The Google
> Groups discussion
> calls this 'open taxonomy', but you could also call it
> 'distributed
> taxonomy'. Digitisation and good project management are
> prerequisites. The
> biggest obstacle I'm seeing at the moment is the entrenched
> attitude that
> 'taxonomy' somehow equates to 'professional taxonomists'.
> 
> Fewer professionals could mean increased output, if those
> professionals are
> willing to participate in projects that use the enormous
> human resources
> online.
> -- 
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia
> 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> either of these
> methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched
> with either of these methods:
> 
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or use a Google search specified as: 
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search
> terms here
> 
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 39, Issue 12
> ***************************************
> 


      




More information about the Taxacom mailing list