[Taxacom] GBIF: perpetuating probably defunct unpublished names
gread at actrix.gen.nz
Sun May 23 16:07:57 CDT 2010
I looked Ken, and the authorships complained of as incorrect appear to be
produced in the electronic catalogue of weevil names referred to. I can't
see that GBIF and their source, Catalogue of Life, are at fault here are
they? They have apparently copied the data as offered. The
error-correction request should go to the WTaxa people.
Search for Scolytus species in the genus box at WTaxa.
>>> On 23/05/2010 at 10:24 p.m., "Walker, Ken" <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
>> ‑ The data published through GBIF are not qualitatively transformed
> from the collections where they originate.
> But they do.
> Look at the authorship of Scolytus scolytus ‑
> In GBIF, EOL and Catalogue of Life 2007 the authorship is incorrectly
> a Wood and Bright 1992:
> GBIF: http://data.gbif.org/species/14616352/
> EOL: http://www.eol.org/pages/691357
> Catalogue of Life 2007:
> However, in ITIS the authorship is corrected listed as (Fabricius, 1775).
> The problem began when a mash up was made from the Electronic Catalogue of
> Curculionoidea website.
> It correctly listed the authorship of Scolytus scolytus and cited the
> publication of Wood and Bright 1992 as the source. Somehow, the mash up
> dropped the authorship name and replaced it with the citation name. Then it
> spread ....
> Now, almost every weevil that occurs in North America and was listed in the
> Wood and Bright 1992 publication has Wood and Bright as the author of the
> those species: Here is the EOL Scoltyus species list. Run your eye down
> list to see how many species have Wood and Bright 1992 as their authorship:
> I sent emails to GBIF and EOL without receiving a reply and so like hitting
> your head against a brick wall ‑‑ I felt better when I stopped.
> I am beginning to wonder whether discrete taxon treatment websites are
> indeed better than those that attempt to do all.
> Ken Walker
> Museum Victoria
More information about the Taxacom