[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Aug 24 16:14:26 CDT 2014
But therein may be the problem! What works well for one (taxonomic) area doesn't work well for others. GBIF is trying to treat all areas the same. Given that most species are tiny arthropods, GBIF may well end up a big mess with just a few useful small things thrown in.
On Mon, 25/8/14, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Monday, 25 August, 2014, 4:18 AM
> I suspect your
hypothetical "tough call" is actually the usual
many published mentions of "Aus bus" may refer to
two or more
> species, without there
being an easy (or even any) way to tell which
suppose that may be true in some areas, but not in ours.
For us, the
tough calls are the edge case
(<1%). But even for groups where tough calls
are more common, you do realize that the fault
is not with the Museums, or
with the data
aggregators or even (gasp) the bureaucrats, right? The
is with the nature of taxonomy and the
"tough calls" is only "tough" because of
documented information (by the
taxonomists) -- not because of bad data.
Clever data structures and software services
can do some pretty magical
things, but one
cannot extract blood from a stone.
More information about the Taxacom