[Taxacom] "nude" Coccinellid genera?
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Mar 3 15:01:38 CST 2013
Bob, regarding an "all-names Catalogue", I have to say that in an ideal world, we would all be working together to achieve this on an open wiki platform like Wikispecies. But in the real world, hardly anyone can be bothered, they just want to leave it to some funded outfit to do, but the wheels of funded outfits tend to turn very slowly, as it is their living, so actually achieving it too quickly would not be prudent for them. We do have some more or less complete pieces of the whole puzzle, like Index Fungorum, but these are too few and far between ...
From: Robert Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
To: P.Kirk at kew.org
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sunday, 3 March 2013 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "nude" Coccinellid genera?
Paul Kirk wrote:
"Am I missing something here ...? Is not the status of a name determined by
searching the appriopriate nomenclator for the link to the
article/book/monography where Code compliance (i.e. is the name available) can
be determined. Yes? Might it therefore be more productive to focus on the task
of ensuring the nomenclator is available than trying to control what appears on
the web - the later sounds distinctly Canute'ish"
So we need an all-names catalogue, which Catalogue of Life attempts to be, and Wikispecies aims to be. The catalogue can then be used by either the producer of Web content (a museum, say, or GBIF) or the consumer of Web content (someone who's found a Web checklist of all the Hemiptera in their region, and wants to know if the names are current, correctly spelled, etc). Sounds like a good idea, Paul, but as a regular reader of Taxacom posts you will be aware that the idea is a long way from becoming reality.
ALA uses expert-compiled Australian national species lists as a first check of what it lists, and Catalogue of Life as a backup. In my audit paper I show that this checking doesn't always work. I don't know what GBIF checks, but it interprets code names as real species names. For example, the data provider database has the code-name Myallosoma 'wagga' (GBIF Scientific name field) and this appears as Myallosoma wagga in the GBIF Scientific name (Interpreted) field. So far as I know a GBIF search doesn't look through 'interpreted' names, but it's a curious thing to do.
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
Ph: (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.
More information about the Taxacom