stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jun 2 03:42:45 CDT 2013
But Rod, something is very wrong! If we look at another random genus, Mirobaeoides, we see that there are 15 currently recognised species according to Wikispecies (http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirobaeoides), but only 4 recognised by BioNames (http://bionames.org/search/Mirobaeoides). The problem is that most of the missing names are from the revision of the genus by Austin (1986), which BioNames does cite! So, there is no excuse for not listing 12 (valid) names in this genus! 3 out of the four names listed by BioNames were originally described by Austin (1986), so where are the other 7 (http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Austin,_1986), plus one more already described?? Maybe it is something special about the number 4 on BioNames?! It only listed 4 spp. of Graphopsocus as well!
From: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
To: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sunday, 2 June 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] BioNames
I didn't use Catalogue of Life because the BioNames is primarily about the link between a name and its publication. In an ideal world we should be able to see the original publication (and any subsequent revision) of a taxon name. This relationship strikes me as a basic part of the biodiversity infrastructure.
The bibliographic data in CoL is a mixture of good, poor, and horribly mangled. I chose ION as the source because it is fairly comprehensive (not complete, but a good place to start). Your experience suggests it does pretty well for millipedes. Browsing BioNames indicates that there are more references lurking in BHL and elsewhere that could be added. If you send me your list I could target those species as well.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:14, Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au> wrote:
> I wondered why Rod Page didn't list CoL as a name source in his post yesterday, so I did a quick check of CoL coverage of a small group of species names. No one on this list will be surprised that I picked Australian millipedes for the test.
> I used CoL's 2013 Annual Checklist, and looked up the 170 new species published during the period 2000-2010 inclusive - no new combinations, just new species. I stopped at 2010 in hopes that CoL coverage would at least reach that date. In fact, it has 2 of the 9 names from 2011.
> CoL is missing 58 of the 170 species. I can't see a pattern in these missing names with regard to year published, author or journal.
> I didn't do a thorough search for the 58 in ION, but all the ones I looked for were there. Being based on CoL, EOL also lacks the 58 MIA (Missing In Aggregation).
> [EOL also preserves CoL's mistakes, so that (just an example) you can find a species page for Gigantowales chisholmi Verhoeff, 1937, and another for the misspelled Gigantowales cisholmi Verhoeff, 1937. ION only lists the correct spelling.]
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania
> Home contact:
> PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive 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
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive 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
Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
More information about the Taxacom