[Taxacom] A simple solution?

Jim Croft jim.croft at gmail.com
Sun Nov 14 23:31:19 CST 2010

Yes, I do not think it is at all helpful to separate nomenclatural and
taxonomic database and documentation efforts. But it is helpful, even
essential to separate 'fact' from 'opinion'.
We do this in APNI, and others are doing it elsewhere, by recording
and documenting the ' fact' of  *published* taxonomic 'opinion'.  All
of them. Some of the literature 'facts' are nomenclature, some are
taxonomic, but looking at it this way the the details and content of
each type of publication is still a fact.
This of course does not help the class of users you describe. They
only want one opnion and want to know that it is *the* opinion. :(
The Australia Plant Census is a an attempt to arrive at that through a
mixture of consensus and fiat.  But it is just another opinion. :)


On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM,  <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:
> Of course the taxonomic component will be permanently evolving ("opinions") while in general, the nomenclatural element will be "facts", but it is mainly the most up-to-date and coherent collection of the former that is what is really required.
> (Let even more flogging commence)
> Regards - Tony

Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point
of doubtful sanity.'
 - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)

Please send URIs, not attachments:

More information about the Taxacom mailing list