[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Chris Thompson xelaalex at cox.net
Fri Feb 17 09:04:16 CST 2012


Interesting as some of the problems are directly related to COMPUTERs!

I suspect you must be a very young "simple computer scientist," who does not 
remember the early days when we were restricted to simple UPPERCLASS ASCII 
and IBM cards! That is why, for example, there is no umlaut accepted in the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for scientific names!

Oh, well ...

-----Original Message----- 
From: Armand Turpel
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:25 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names

I'm not a taxonomist or a biologist but a simple computer scientist  who
have to fight nightmares when taxonomy hits his door.

There are different levels of validation of taxons in our database or
species observation files we receive. Here a few examples:


Crouan{?} ex Nyl. > ????

SULZER > Sulzer

Schmitt > Schmit, Schmith, Schmidt, Schmitd, Schmid : we need the right
Schmi*

Muller > Müller, Mueller: Some one couldn't find ü on his keyboard

1903 > 1907, 1902 or no year

(Schrank, 1789) > Schrank, 1789

Bombasta testosterosa (Schwarzeneggerii, 1971) > Family of Bodyaceae or
Brainaceae or, hey, what's this?

Stilbospora angustata Pers. 1801 > Is it a synonym and if yes of what?

Onthophagus somalicus > Is it a homonym?


Then there are lsids, genetics and quantic effects ...., next week as
promised!

Nevertheless I enjoy this discussion which, in my opinion, is really
necessary.

a+
arm

On 17/02/2012 00:10, Richard Zander wrote:
> It seems to be best that informatics deals best with as objective,
> factual information, minimizing the gray area.
>
> Regarding "subjective," however, taxonomists wrestle mightily with
> decisions every day, trying to make reasonable and fact-based name
> changes of benefit to all users of taxonomy. They use discursive logic
> based on examination of dozens or hundreds of specimens in the context
> of evolutionary theory, and this is not particularly subjective to me.
>
> Yes, deciding which name is "correct" ("valid" for botanists) is a
> problem for those not familiar with the subject matter. Using the latest
> name is a good rule of thumb, although I've argued against the newest
> molecular phylogenetic names interminably in the past.
>
> One might make an analogy with scientific theorization in other fields.
> Which theory is right, photon or wave? Is the world round or flat? Is
> the red shift a property of an expanding universe or a function of
> decreasing energy associated with intervening gravity wells? Is the
> value of pi different if you have a large enough circle, like one around
> the whole universe? Is the black maple a species or only a variety of
> the sugar maple?
>
> Note that the above are, however some are strange, scientific questions.
> Scientific intuition helps solve them. Each question in valid/correct
> names needs a FermiLab of scientists to do the molecular, growth,
> ethology, allozyme, biogeography, cytology, population, and etc. studies
> needed to get a definitive answer.
>
> This is why it is easy to say decisions are subjective when they are
> merely poorly funded. If every informatics person spent half his/her
> time in biosystematics work, these problems would be less "subjective."
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Chuck Miller
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:58 PM
> To: Roderic Page; taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names
>
> Dear Rod,
>
> I would propose to extend your phrase to "person(s) x in publication y
> asserted that two names are synonyms or lexical variants of each other"
> The assertion of related names occurs in a publication by that/those
> person(s).  Publication y's assertion should just be an objective fact
> and immutable.
>
> But, the sticky wicket comes when point 6 is posed: "Which of all the
> related names is the best one to use to refer to the organism right
> now"?   The issue of best is invariably subjective.
>
> Chuck
>
> here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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

_______________________________________________

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