Unique and Stable Numbering Systems versus Nomenclature

[christian thompson]

David Nicolson wrote:

>>Assuming that data exchange does happen at some point (not trying to beg
the
>>point, but trying to address a related issue), I also feel that a unique
&
>>stable numbering system is a prerequisite, even if different systems use
>>different schemes internally... As keystroke errors (heaven forbid! But
any
>>system will have some!) are found fixed over time a name may lose it's
>>ability to continue to reliably map between systems over time... A unique
&
>>stable number will not change, so once you've mapped it between systems
>>you're set (one could use it to detect changes in status & linkages).

But unfortunately a "unique & stable numbering system" probably won't ever
happen  as the community will not support such. What David doesn't realize
is it isn't numbers that is the requirement for "unique & stable.". It is
the community acceptance of a system to make anything "unique & stable."
Zoological Nomenclature is an International Standard which should give you
"unique & stable" identifier (keys, etc.), but it fails because people will
not follow it nor allow its modification to better provide the "unique &
stable," etc.  Set up a registration system like the Bacteria people did,
and you get "unique" names. "Stable" fails because of taxonomic progress and
classification paradigms.

Social Security Numbers are great unique and stable identifiers (keys) for
people who live and work in the United States of America simply because the
US Government forces everyone to get one from them.  In theory, ITIS
taxonomic serial numbers (TSN) should also work, but given the traffic we
had on TAXACOM about a year or so ago no one seems willing to accept ONE
taxonomy set by ITIS.

The other point I wonder about David's remark is why  "keystroke errors"
only happen to names, but somehow numbers don't have the same problems.
Given the number of incorrect telephone calls I receive, I suspect people
will also make mistakes with TSNs.

David has also included the identification problem in his discussion. So
let it be said, unique numbers do not solve in anyway the identification
problem. If some one identifies a fly as Musca domestica Linnaeus (ITIS TSN
150251), but it is really Fannia canicularis (Linnaeus) (ITIS TSN 151350),
when they record their identification they will use number 150251. David how
does you "unique and stable" numbering system fix that? The only way to
solve the identification problem is to require that every observation is
vouchered by a specimen which has an unique code, etc. TAXACOM went thru
that one too in reference to GENBANK, etc.

Yes, over the past 250 years, we have made lots of misidentification,
re-used the same name (homonymy), etc., but some how, names like Diptera,
Muscidae, Musca domestica Linnaeus, have remain fairly stable and are
largely unique. They have served successful (so far as you consider
Systematics a successful science) to be "keys" to information. So despite
ITIS's TSN they still are much more universal and useful for biodiversity
information exchange.  AND once GBIF is done they will be!

Smile :-)

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