More GBIF questions (was: ITIS)

[Meredith Lane]

Dear Paul,
Back when I was a practicing taxonomist and a professor of systematics,
I divided "names problems" as you do.  The way I divided them in my
message yesterday was from the perspective of GBIF, which needs an ECAT
as what is called in IT computerese an "authority file" (not to be
confused with the term "authoritative" as it is used in taxonomy).  Most
non-taxonomists we talk to are astonished to learn that there is no
complete list of all the names that have ever been assigned --- never
mind whether the synonymies have been sorted out or not.  Such a
compilation is one step toward a meta-GSD for all known organisms, as
well as a way to make the world's biodiversity data computer-searchable.

More important to this discussion, however, is your last question "who
is to do this (using databases in innovative ways to sort out
nomenclature)"?  Seems to me that the answer is another question: Who
has always done the work of sorting out nomenclature?  It's just that
now there are some new tools to help (and speed up the process), which
it seems a good idea to use.

Meredith
Meredith A. Lane, PhD
PR & Scientific Liaison
GBIF Secretariat
Global Biodiversity Information Facility
mlane at gbif.org
www.gbif.org <http://www.gbif.org>


Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:

>>Wolfgang Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>On a side note, two questions:
>>>
>>>
>1.) Obviously, since the Rio Convention there have been increased efforts
>(GBIF, Species2000, UBIO, etc.) to address and solve the 'names problem'
>(part of the 'taxonomic impediment'), but it seems to me that the logic
>central role of the Codes (IZCN, ICBN, etc.) has received too little
>attention, so far.
>In Coleoptera Carabidae, I have to deal with more than 60.000 names (without
>counting secondary generic combinations) for 34.000 species, and I
>encountered more than 1000 names problems that cannot be settled on the
>basis of the current ICZN Code (4th ed.). Obviously there is an urgent need
>for several important amendments in details of the Code (see also recent
>discussions on the ICZN-list).
>
>+ + +
>I think I missed what the "ICZN-list" is?
>+ + +
>
>From: Meredith Lane <mlane at GBIF.ORG>
>
>
>>It seems to me that we need to clarify a little more closely that there
>>
>>
>are really two classes of "names problems" :
>1)  Those that arise from nomenclatural practice as governed (or not) by
>the Codes -- such as those you describe for your carabids.
>2)  Those that arise because of transcription errors of one sort or
>another (e.g. taxonomist who named it got the orthography wrong, person
>who ID'ed a specimen spelled the name wrong, person who entered specimen
>data into a database committed a typo).
>
>+ + +
>I have never seen "name problems" divided into those two classes. It is more
>usual to divide them into:
>1) taxonomic problems ("This species belongs into what genus?" and perhaps
>"This name has an insufficient diagnosis and supporting material to place
>it. Is it a separate species at all?")
>2) nomenclatural problems (like, rediscovered old names threatening
>established names; also, the question to correct or not to correct the
>taxonomist who named it but got the orthography wrong)
>
>Besides that there are various problems such as "unpublished names" in
>current use and indeed transcription errors.
>+ + +
>
>
>
>>Fixing the Codes won't take care of class 2
>>
>>
>
>+ + +
>In some cases it will
>+ + +
>
>
>
>>, but it is *many* of those
>>
>>
>that ITIS, Species2000 and GBIF have to deal with, in addition to the
>confusions occasioned by class 1. Gradually, as those working on GSDs
>(global species databases) for various groups of organisms complete
>their work, much of the name-clutter will be cleaned up. [...]
>
>
>
>>GBIF would be pleased to talk with the Commissions about ways that its
>>
>>
>Electronic Catalogue of Names of Known Organisms (ECAT) could be
>utilized in innovative ways to speed up the process of sorting out
>nomenclature, and perhaps even eliminating the future generation of
>synonyms
>
>+ + +
>The ICZN is put together by a Commission, but the ICBN is "amended" by a
>more complex procedure, as is (I think) the Bacterial Code. Using databases
>"in innovative ways to speed up the process of sorting out [the]
>nomenclature" sounds promising, but who is to do this?
>
>Paul van Rijckevorsel
>Utrecht, NL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
<http://www.gbif.org>