[Taxacom] problems with GBIF

[Stephen Thorpe]

I agree with Michael, and Wikispecies is probably no better on those  
particular groups at present, but NOTE THAT GBIF HAS THE BENEFIT OF  
FUNDING, whereas the Wikis are reliant upon volunteers. I don't mind  
getting less than I might want if I get it for free, but if I'm paying  
for it, ...

GBIF will be a really good resource by the year ... umm ... forget it,  
the sun will have burned itself out by then, and no species will exist!

S

Quoting Michael Heads <michael.heads at yahoo.com>:

> Dear colleagues,
>  
> Two of my favourite sites for basic information on taxa  
> are wikipedia and GBIF, but I wouldn't bet the farm on their  
> data. Compare the GBIF map of the plant family Papilionaceae s.lat.  
> (aka Fabaceae), ranging north exactly to the US/Canada border:
>  
> http://data.gbif.org/species/13146161/
>  
> with the butterfly family Papilionidae, ranging south to exactly the  
> same border (and west to Alaska):
>  
> http://data.gbif.org/species/13143363/
>
> Interesting vicariance! Must be climatic...
> If the 'developed' countries can't get their act together, what  
> about the places where all the biodiversity is?
>  
> Michael Heads
>  
> Wellington, New Zealand.
>
> My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:   
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.