[Taxacom] data quality vs. data security
s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz
Thu Feb 11 21:58:59 CST 2010
Thanks for your full and interesting reply, bringing with it as it does another perspective on the issue, which is good. Actually, you made a small (but understandable) error in interpretation of the AFD site, the Apteropanorpa pages may well have beel "last modified" (in some way) in 2008, as stated, but it appears that the actual information content was last updated by ant specialist Steve Shattuck in 1998 (see top of the family page for Apteropanorpidae http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/APTEROPANORPIDAE). It is a bit convoluted, and I too missed that citation until someone pointed it out to me off-list. You mention Wikipedia, but if you check the history you will find that it too said there was only A. tasmanica until I updated it a few hours ago. I see you are concerned with the issue of how many species there ACTUALLY are in the genus, as indeed you should be. However, the present context is one of how many species there are thought to be, going by the currently published literature. On that question, only the Wikispecies page (out of the other alternatives mentioned above) gives you everything you need to know about that...
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman [kennethkinman at webtv.net]
Sent: Friday, 12 February 2010 4:38 p.m.
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] data quality vs. data security
In this particular case, Wikipedia is a little better than AFD.
However, neither gives me enough information to evaluate how many true
species there are in the genus Apteropanorpa.
AFD indicates that the page was updated in 2008. I can forgive
them for missing the 2007 paper which added the third and fourth
proposed species of the genus. However, there is no excuse for missing
(or at very least not mentioning) the second proposed species by Byers
and Yeates back in 1999 in a prominent Australian journal.
But what really irks me is that I checked NCBI for molecular
sequences for this genus, and the only species in the genus represented
is A. evansi. Even the type species is not represented, nor the two new
species proposed in 2007 based on both molecular and morphological data.
If one claims that there are four separate species based on molecular
and morphological data, why is there only molecular data for one species
I suspect that there are probably indeed at least two species of
Apteropanorpa, but whether the two additional species proposed in 2007
are also good species perhaps depends on the species concept used in
establishing those two additional species. Neither AFD nor Wikispecies
gives me the information needed to answer that question. That the
relevant sequence information isnt in the NCBI database is both puzzling
I would be interested in readers opinions on this simple question:
taking the particular example of the genus Apteropanorpa, does the
closed edit database AFD
give anyone anything useful that the corresponding Wikispecies page
(http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Apteropanorpa) does not?
Note that the AFD info is 11 years out of date, but is seen by some as
having somehow got "more secure" content.
My view is that the AFD info is either seriously misleading/wrong OR it
is neither of those things but tells you nothing useful! It depends if
it tells you when it was last updated (and I haven't checked, but I
don't see anything obvious). If it doesn't, then the reasonable
interpretation by a user would be that there is only one valid species
of Apteropanorpa, which is wrong. If it does say that it was last
updated in 1998 or something (was it even around then?), then it tells
you something true, i.e., that in 1998 there was only one known (valid)
species of Apteropanorpa, but that information seems to me to be of
little or no practical use...
I am granting for the sake of argument that the AFD info is somehow
"more secure" (closed edit), but the question is: would anyone have any
good reason to use the AFD info over the Wikispecies info? Note that the
question is NOT which would you prefer if both were kept equally
up-to-date and reliable, but which would you prefer as things actually
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom