GenBank & Taxonomical Nomenclature/identification

[Carol Hotton]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Doug Yanega wrote:

> Apparently, after depositing a sequence in GenBank's archives, you
> CANNOT change its species designation, even if it is later
> discovered (by reference to voucher material, taxonomic revision,
> etc.) to be erroneous.

Speaking for the five individuals who maintain the taxonomy database
associated with the GenBank sequence databases, I just want to correct
an erroneous statement from Doug Yanega that it is not possible to
correct species designations after an associated sequence has been
deposited in GenBank.  It would certainly be most distressing,
especially to us, if this were true, but fortunately it is not true.

Submitters are indeed allowed to update any data relating to their
sequences submssions at any time, including of course, taxonomic
revisions, changes in classification, voucher information, or anything
else related to the deposited sequence accessions.  Updates
originating from submitters of sequences may be sent to:
update at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, or through the submission
tool Sequin (for further details see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Sequin/index.html).

Furthermore, we strongly urge the community of people who use the
GenBank taxonomy database to let us know about errors that they find
there, whether they are misspellings, orthgraphic variants, misnomers
or incorrect or outdated classifications, by sending their comments to
info at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The five of us are responsible for maintaining
an up-to-date classification of the entire range of living organisms,
and we need all the help we can get!

By the way, Doug, I would be interested in knowing the details of your
colleague's experience with GenBank.

Carol Hotton,
for the GenBank taxonomy database staff
(Scott Federhen, Mimi Harrington, Ian Harrison, Carol Hotton, Detlef
Leipe)

>
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Doug Yanega wrote:
>
>> Apparently, after depositing a sequence in GenBank's archives, you
>CANNOT
>> change its species designation, even if it is later discovered (by
>> reference to voucher material, taxonomic revision, etc.) to be
>erroneous.
>
>then on Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Peter Rauch wrote:
>
>>How about "add a new designation to the record", with
>>date/authority/etc, so that the history of designations is
>>retained with the record (with the sequence)?
>
>Peter is right, the best procedure is to build a permanent record of
all
>names and identifications that were used or are being used for a
sequence,
>etc. In taxonomy we call these synonymies, etc. and the procedure
dates back
>to Linnaeus and before.
>
>BUT DOES ANYONE KNOW exactly what the GenBank policy is?  Is Doug
really
>correct in his statement?
>
>
>
>F. Christian Thompson
>Systematic Entomology Lab., ARS, USDA
>Smithsonian Institution
>Washington, D. C. 20560-0169
>(202) 382-1800 voice
>(202) 786-9422 FAX
>cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov
>visit our Diptera site at www.diptera.org