[Taxacom] Taxatoy and the jaggies

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Oct 4 18:19:12 CDT 2012


Data on some groups, like your polychaete data, might well be quite good, but any attempt at present to synthesise global data for all groups will be dragged down by vast areas of poor data (Coleoptera, Acari, etc.)
 
S


________________________________
From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxatoy and the jaggies

"The all organisms taxatoy graph is ridiculous! "

Yes, it is.  There is considerable missing data compared to the
downloadable spreadsheet. A disclaimer or warning should be put up at the
site. I am trying today to get someone to undertake to fix the tool. No
success so far.

It's probably only of use for trending anyway (when it's working
properly). I'm pretty sure if done again today the counts would be higher,
and that for my marine polychaete group WoRMS yearly data would still be
better.

Geoff

On Thu, October 4, 2012 6:20 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> I don't believe *either* taxatoy or ION. The all organisms taxatoy graph
> is ridiculous! What could have caused the "stock market crash" at about
> 1973?! Utter rubbish! On the other hand, ION is inexplicably duplicating
> many of its recent entries on a regular basis. Caveat emptor ...
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2012 6:01 PM
> Subject: [Taxacom] Taxatoy and the jaggies
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone care to speculate why Ubio's taxatoy graph of counts of new
> species in the online tool looks so sparse from the 1940s onwards?  ION's
> Animalia totals look way more realistic, and have >15,000 per year from
> the 1970s, with the Animalia fig in the published paper in 2008 about
> taxatoy at least in same ballpark, although having lower counts at ~10,000
> per year.  What is shown in the taxatoy display doesn't seem to match
> those two at all. Perhaps something is amiss?  A blog pic from 2011 shows
> the same unlikely and different graph was there a year ago.
>
> http://taxatoy.ubio.org/
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/144
> http://iise.blogspot.com/2011/08/playing-around-with-taxatoy.html
>
> Geoff


More information about the Taxacom mailing list