[Taxacom] Article 8 compliance
calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Mar 30 13:41:40 CDT 2017
More like ~$1-2M for initial development, and then something on the order
of a few $K per year to maintain, plus occasional small (5-figure) grants
to add major new features/etc. as needed/requested by the community.
Just a million or so (or much more) here and there for databasing while the
practice of taxonomy sinks.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Hi John,
> > Fair enough, but maybe it is not so much crafting the 5th edition of the
> Code to
> > offer a more stable solution but crafting ZooBank to do that.
> Yes, the two go hand-in-hand. Note that I said the new system should be
> "modelled after" ZooBank. A LOT would have to change with the existing
> ZooBank before it could fulfill the function I imagine.
> > Do you have a cunning plan?
> I'm not sure "cunning" is the best adjective, but there certainly is a
> > By any reckoning it would take an
> > investment of at least $10m.
> More like ~$1-2M for initial development, and then something on the order
> of a few $K per year to maintain, plus occasional small (5-figure) grants
> to add major new features/etc. as needed/requested by the community.
> > Meanwhile we still have to live with the 4th edition
> > and the Article 8 amendment . . .
> I predict a new, robust ZooBank will be in existence well before the 5th
> Edition goes into effect, but they need to happen in parallel. Of course,
> to build a radically new approach to how names are established in a
> Code-compliant fashion requires very strong engagement by the broader
> community. I believe the new system should be designed bottom-up (i.e., by
> the community establishing a clear set of priorities), rather than the top
> down. And that means many conversations like this one. Before we even get
> into the detailed discussions, we (the community) needs to decide things
> - What are the minimum required pieces of information needed to confer
> availability to new names and acts?
> - What additional optional information should be accommodated?
> - If provisions such as Art. 13.1.1 are maintained, then exactly what
> objective threshold should be used to determine whether the requirement for
> "a description or definition that states in words characters that are
> purported to differentiate the taxon" has been fulfilled?
> - Should the rules go beyond stating the name and location of the
> collection where the type is deposited, and, for example elevate
> Recommendation 73C.6 to a requirement? (e.g., require an explicit
> actionable identifier for a type specimen be indicated)
> - Should all new names and acts undergo some form of independent review
> prior to being established as available? If so, how are the reviewers
> determined, and who arbitrates disputes among conflicting reviews?
> I could go on and on, but the point is that the system should be defined
> by the identified needs; not implemented first to figure out what the
> strengths and weaknesses are after the fact. THIS is the conversation we
> need to be having as a broader community.
> In addressing your point above, another option would be to craft another
> Amendment (= "band aid") to the fourth edition; but I'm strongly opposed to
> that because it would represent a significant distraction from getting the
> more important work of the 5th Edition completed.
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate Zoologist in
> Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer
> Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu,
> HI 96817
> Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom