[Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...

Geoffrey Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Sun Sep 5 18:11:47 CDT 2010

They can be direct urls Steven. It's just a question of whether it's
worthwhile to provide the link post hoc, when the user can go to BHL etc,
themselves.  WoRMS development cycle I suspect somewhat predates the
recent rise of BHL and DOIs, hence the links may not be common yet in the
database. But the links and DOIs can be put in, have been put in, and no
doubt this will occur more frequently from now on with the new literature.
It's also possible to upload pdfs directly online, but this is also a
copyright issue.


On Mon, September 6, 2010 10:57 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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

Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz

More information about the Taxacom mailing list