[Taxacom] BioNames and others names

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sun Jun 2 04:22:42 CDT 2013

From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 10:41 AM

> Ha!  Good one, Paul.  Talk about "Gross Exaggeration"!  I know it *seems*
> like it should be this simple, but it's not.  When you examine all the
> different databases out there, you'll find that it's *VERY* rare to find 
> two
> databases that have a simple 1:1 relationship between a "name" record in
> one, to a "name" record in another.

Given that what most databases (the 'aggregators')
appear to be doing is beyond my comprehension, this is
unsurprising. This is caused by the 'database mentality', and
does not mean that there is a genuine problem ...
* * *

> Here's a very simple example:  How many "names" are included
> the list below?

Well, when it comes to "scientific names of taxa", this comes
to eight (with perhaps no more than three types being
involved). If you want to talk about 'names' you can make it
as complicated as you like.

- Anthias
- Pseudanthias

- Anthias ventralis
- Anthias hawaiiensis
- Pseudanthias ventralis
- Pseudanthias hawaiiensis

- Pseudanthias ventralis ventralis
- Pseudanthias ventralis hawaiiensis
* * *

>> But under the ICNafp there is no confusion on these points, so these are
>> strictly localized sources of confusion.
> Too bad that botanical names represent such a small fraction of the taxa
> that are out there....

Don't blame me. Not my doing ...


More information about the Taxacom mailing list