bonap/mip

[Hugh Wilson]

An updated (1994 vs. 1998) version of the referenced website is at:

http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/b98/check98.htm

Mapping available from both sites is based on data compiled by the
Biota of North America program (BONAP) and this is clearly indicated
at both.  BONAP distributions are based on published checklists and
atlases, not vouchered 'state records'.  A check of the maps
available at the Flora of North America site

http://www.fna.org/index1.html

 will produce no reference to mapping vouchers and I don't think
these maps are based on specific vouchers (might be wrong, any FNA
contributors care to comment?).  Its interesting to compare the small
subset available through the FNA site with those for the full U.S.
flora at the BONAP-based sites.  Many differ - at the State level -
and the few checks that I have made support the BONAP maps.

It is remarkable, to me at least, that documented (vouchered) U.S.
vascular plant distributions - at the State level - are not
available, either hardcopy or on line.  However, NSF seems content to
support non-vouchered distribution mapping for the U.S. flora, and a
recent proprosal to explore development of a vouchered system:

http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/aspt/pro98bbase.htm

was declined by NSF.

Another item of interest relates to the fact all distribution mapping
for large areas, either hardcopy or web-based, will include
errors, omissions or records that will need updating
(extinction/expansion) through time.  Thus, as opposed to
hardcopy maps, web-based distributions can be adjusted and both
mapping and nomenclature available through the site at:

http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/b98/check98.htm

will be updated (in the next few months) with a 1999 dataset from
BONAP.  This presents an awkward situation with regard to scientific
citation, i.e., reference to a dynamic (changing) data display, that
will be a part of all digital systems.  To provide 'firm ground' do
site developers:

1.  Archive old (dated) systems to allow stable citation
2.  Tag changes to allow the user to track updates/changes
3.  Focus (both 1 and 2 require time/$$ input) on keeping the data
(and web interface) current and allow the process of scientific
citation adjust to dynamic data displays

There might be other developmental options.  Any comments?

On 20 Mar 99 at 10:46, Neil A. Harriman <harriman at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
wrote:

> An anonymous reviewer for a journal suggested I get the known range for a
> weedy species in eastern North America from the website
> http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/bonap/checklist_intro.html.  I went there,
> typed in the name of the plant, and got a fine distribution map and
> statement of range.  The whole thing printed off easily.  This is just too
> good.  My question is, how reliable are the data?  Have the compilers
> actually seen and reliably identified vouchers for each state where they
> say it occurs?  Shall I now begin citing this source as equivalent to a
> literature citation?
>
> I certainly do not mean to impugn the professional reputations of the
> compilers; rather, I would like to know some background and receive some
> assurances that I am on firm ground here.  Many thanks.
>
>
> Neil A. Harriman
> Biology Department
> University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
> Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901
>

Hugh D. Wilson
Texas A&M University - Biology
h-wilson at tamu.edu (409-845-3354)
http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilson/homepage.html