P.Kirk at kew.org
Mon Jun 3 16:03:06 CDT 2013
I am inclined to agree with Stephen on this one :-)
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: 03 June 2013 21:57
To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; neale at bishopmuseum.org
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] BioNames
The answer is simple: less automated and more human involvement in the aggregation process, combined with an efficient and transparent system for feedback regarding errors, by anyone who notices them (preferably with the history all logged and publicly archived) ...
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: neale at bishopmuseum.org; stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tuesday, 4 June 2013 8:45 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] BioNames
OK... so returning to the "Cepa" thread as identified by Chris Thompson ...
Looking at http://bionames.org/search/Cepa,the problem arises on account of Cepa being a genus-level homonym (twice in both animals and plants), which can be discovered via various sources as previously noted, however this is not reflected in the GBIF backbone taxonomy (http://ecat-dev.gbif.org/search?q=Cepa&rkey=1) to which Rod has pinned a lot of his classification information. So some questions might arise as follows:
- why does the GBIF taxonomy mangle this group of names (what is specific to this case)
- is this likely to be a rare or common event (is it a more general class of error)
- what could assist GBIF to (a) detect this and equivalent problems, and (b) fix them
- what could assist Rod or other external user of GBIF data to do the same (i.e. warning signs)
- does BioNames choose wisely in using the GBIF taxonomy, bearing in mind the latter's disclaimers i.e.:
"Nub Disclaimer: The GBIF Backbone Taxonomy (Nub) is an automatically synthesised management classification with limited manual curating. Information presented here does not represent a consistent taxon but may conflict with other nub "usages" in many cases to a trained taxonomists eye. The information presented on this page was aggregated from the data found in the sources below."
I do have some thoughts about these but no more time just now (shades of Fermat's last theorem) however if others would like to chip in, please do.
Regards - Tony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Neal Evenhuis
> Sent: Sunday, 2 June 2013 8:34 PM
> To: Stephen Thorpe
> Cc: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] BioNames
> Stephen --
> Cepa Humphries 1797 is a nomen nudum -- according to Sherborn -- who
> DOES list it in his Index Animalium (damn, he was good ... ). Its being
> an unavailable name is probably why it is not in Neave or WorMS ....
> 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.
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> (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