[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Wolfgang Lorenz faunaplan at googlemail.com
Thu Sep 8 06:43:57 CDT 2011


Wouldn't it be possible to organize it via catalogue-style PDFs for each
taxon, with hyperlinks to BHL and other resources?
See an example here:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4sReh1UVKCbOGJmZmM0NjEtYjIwMC00MTAxLWI2YzUtOTZlNjA5YWE5MjEx&hl=en_US

By the way, if we create an open-access library of such catalogue PDFs that
include the names taken as valid names by authors (= "chresonyms"), we can
also use it to keep track of changes in generic combinations of
species-group names. This would help us to make ZooBank an index of ALL
available names in zoology...

Cheers,
Wolfgang

------------------------------------

Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany


2011/9/8 Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>

> Dear all
>
>
>
> We would like to ask for some input.
>
>
>
> Species-ID <http://species-id.net/wiki/>  and Plazi <http://plazi.org/>
>  are
> maintaining and expanding a platform that offers access to published
> semantically enhanced treatments of taxa (Plazi) and a Wiki (Species-ID)
> that allows to modify and change those treatments, following the wiki
> policies allowing everybody to become an editor. The integrity of the
> original treatment is given by a link back to the original published
> version
> on Plazi, the original citation and a version control.
>
>
>
> The issue at hand is, that there are often numerous redescriptions of the
> same taxon, inferring the same taxonomic concept or not, and that they have
> to be labelled accordingly. But how is this done best?
>
>
>
> For example Formica sanguinea Latreille 1798: Smith published a
> redescription 1851 under the name Formica sanguinea. How would such a
> treatment best be labelled?
> http://species-id.net/wiki/Formica_sanguinea_%28Smith,_F._1851%29
>
> As Formica sanguinea Latreille sensu Smith, 1851?
>
> Formica sanguinea sensu Smith 1851?
>
> Formica sanguinea sec. Smith 1851?
>
> Formica sanguinea (Smith, 1851)?
>
>
>
> In botany this becomes even more complicated since the listing of the
> authors reflects also the history of nomenclatural changes.
>
>
>
> In full language, this would read: This is a treatment of Formica sanguinea
> published by Smith 1851 according to his understanding of Latreilles (1798)
> connotation of Formica sanguinea. He does not assume any authorship of this
> particular taxon, just adds some more information to this concept.
>
>
>
> What is the preferable labelling of such a treatment?
>
>
>
> Please let us know
>
>
>
> All the best
>
>
>
> Gregor Hagedorn and Donat Agosti
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list