[Taxacom] LSID versus names

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Jun 19 18:52:17 CDT 2012

I can understand why doi are a good idea for publications - because they don't otherwise have standard identifiers - but taxonomic names *are* standard identifiers for taxa. The fact that they fail <1% of the time is no justification for assigning *everything* GUIDs ...

From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: 'Jim Croft' <jim.croft at gmail.com>; 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: 'Chris Thompson' <xelaalex at cox.net>; 'Neal Evenhuis' <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; 'Roderic Page' <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>; 'Frederick W. Schueler' <bckcdb at istar.ca>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June 2012 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] LSID versus names

> But they are not designed for humans. They are designed for computers to
> communicate with each other unambiguously.


This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list