[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after thinkingabout it!)

[Stephen Thorpe]

No doubt tools like Synagraph can put the cherry on top, but I wonder  
who is supplying the dough? No, I don't mean who is funding it! It is  
a cake analogy. Just as a pedantic issue on the Synagraph section  
relating to confidence in synonymy:
'The lack of a symbol is used if the author indicated no degree of confidence.
Full confidence in relation is indicated by an asterisk (*).'
Typically, an author with full confidence would simply state the  
synonymy without otherwise indicating a degree of confidence, so this  
looks wierd to me.

Still, PUTNIs are one thing, but it is the overall classification that  
matters more, and this can differ between authors in a multitude of  
ways. The real challenges lie in trying to render all the taxonomic  
information consistent between authors. No sane user is going to  
settle just for a big list going back to Linnaeus (1758) of every  
classification a particular PUTNI appeared in! They want to know what  
the best (or at least one of the best) classification context for a  
given PUTNI currently is...

Also, given that it is going to be probably milennia before all the  
relevant data is in a single database, what value are all these  
databases and associated tools in reality, when they are working on  
incomplete (and therefore potentially very misleading data)? As an  
example of sorts, that latest paper by Wallis and Trewick which  
Michael Heads pointed out yesterday: much of the beetle information in  
it is either out-of-date (Dorcus and Lissotes, instead of Geodorcus  
and Paralissotes), incorrect (Prodontria is a scarab, not a carabid),  
or very possibly meaningless (i.e., what does 42% endemism of N.Z.  
beetles mean when for big chunks of it no modern comparative work has  
been done on adjacent faunas?). No offence to Trewick or Wallis  
intended here - I know the difficulties that they face in getting good  
info of this kind: for the N.Z. beetles, for example, one major  
difficulty is the lack of a comprehensive and reliable "database" or  
other secondary source.

Stephen

Quoting Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>:

> Once upon a time Syngraph was developed by Adorian Ardelean to help with
> part of that PUTNI (or applied name) organizing & distilling. It's still
> there I see. I didn't know one could easily connect it to an existing
> relational database - but apparently so ....   I might give it another try
> sometime!
>
> http://web.nhm.ku.edu/inverts/syngraph/beta/index.htm
>
> Geoff
>
>
>>>> On 14/08/2009 at 11:36 a.m., Pat LaFollette <pat at lafollette.com> wrote:
>> You are not the only one thinking about this.  I've even coined the
>> seemingly obligatory acronym: PUTNI (PUblished Taxonomic Name
>> Instance).  Everyone I know who does taxonomic revision or other
>> systematic work makes them in one form or another.  Historically, one
>> would take notes on file cards, or photocopy taxonomic publications,
>> cut up the text and plates, add citation and notes, and arrange them
>> systematically in notebooks.  What is needed (what I need) is a
>> digital analog for the scissors and tape, a standard PUTNI object and
>> and tools to make them.  The raw material in digital format is
>> becoming available on Internet Archive and Biodiversity Heritage
>> Library; when necessary one packs up laptop and scanner and heads to
>> the library.  Who makes them?  Whoever needs them to support their
>> own research (or a hive of worker bees if funding were
>> available).  How long does it take?  That really depends on the
>> quality and efficiency of the tools, but probably a very long
>> time.  On the up-side, if done properly, it only needs to be done
>> once for each taxonomic work or group.
>>
>> My ideal PUTNI tool would include links to bibliographic citation and
>> taxonomic heirarchy, cut and paste from digital page and plate
>> images, OCR, translation assistance, the ability to code taxonomic
>> acts and errors, add notes and keywords, and link from the synonymy
>> items to the PUTNIs they indicate.
>>
>> Patrick LaFollette
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.