[Taxacom] GBIF: perpetuating probably defunct unpublished names
mesibov at southcom.com.au
Sun May 23 06:57:07 CDT 2010
David Remsen wrote:
"What should the practice be for someone who wants to taxonomically validate their collections data prior to publishing their data via GBIF?"
IMO a major problem is that providers haven't always *wanted* to validate. The aggregators asked for data, and the providers offered it up uncleaned. Not only taxonomically inconsistent, but spatially doubtful. I won't name names, but one provider told me 'The important thing is to get the data up and online, we can worry about cleaning it later. The [aggregator] has time and money to do this, we don't.'
Ken Walker wrote:
"I am beginning to wonder whether discrete taxon treatment websites are indeed better than those that attempt to do all."
How could it be otherwise?
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
More information about the Taxacom