[Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Sep 5 17:57:40 CDT 2010


yes, except (unless I'm missing something) the citations aren't actually linked 
to the literature itself (i.e., PDFs, DOIs, links to BHL, etc.), so you gotta go 
hunting if you actually wanna read the literature ...




________________________________
From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 6 September, 2010 10:44:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...

That criticism is ridiculous.

There are 140,948 primary literature sources in WoRMS
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=sourcelist

For example 446 marine taxa are linked to Linnaeus 1758
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=sourcedetails&id=8

Not all of them correctly probably, but that's another story. ;-)

Geoff

On Mon, September 6, 2010 9:55 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Well, Geoff, no doubt WoRMS does have a few tricks of its own, but surely
> a HUGE
> advantage of Wikispecies is having links to primary literature (whenever
> available), as opposed to just citing another database as source?? With
> more and
> more literature going online (both new and historical), any database that
> doesn't index and link to that literature is wasting all our time IMO. In
> that
> sense, Wikispecies is more like an electronic library (you could get the
> "books"
> elsewhere, but here they all are classified by taxon relevance) ...
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Sun, 5 September, 2010 8:47:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...
>
>>>> On 4/09/2010 at 10:59 a.m., Stephen Thorpe  wrote:
>
>> yes, but I was comparing the structure, not the content
>> currently, there is very little on Wikispecies for your group, but
> imagine equal content and ask which would be better then ...
>
> Well WoRMS still obviously. There is much more capability to run logical
> checks to identify possible erroneous records and inconsistencies, and to
> extract precise datasets, and to be queried via various web protocols
> automatically.
>
> I somewhat hesitated to mention all that as I presume Stephen is thinking
> for the direct end user over the net, where there might not be that much
> of a visible difference, but I suspect WoRMS will be less work to keep the
> taxonomy current and even now has a more flexible and precise search
> capacity.  A drag and drop taxonomy tree for editors like in EOL lifedesks
> and in Specify would be a nice feature update, but that very ease of
> change has its dangers.
>
> Geoff


      


More information about the Taxacom mailing list