[Taxacom] People and databases

[Bob Mesibov]

Stephen Thorpe wrote:

"Taxonomists, on the other hand, will typically try to solve the mutual inconsistency problem by claiming that their own theory is the "correct one"! So, what do we do? The conventional answer is that we just push on and do our best, but the reality is that this just perpetuates the creation of more and more "databases", basically all giving different answers to the same questions!"

Your 3 steps are a clear way of looking at the bigger picture, but I don't think this comment is fair to taxonomists. In the latest paper on O. targionii, the taxonomist (C.A.W. Jeekel) writes "For the time being it seems best to follow the well-balanced opinion of Strasser and to recognize for O. targionii only two subspecies targionii s. str. and t. verruculiger."  The key words in that sentence are 'For the time being it seems best'. In my taxon-limited experience, taxonomic judgement and opinion aren't arbitrary, but are defensible weighings-up of a range of often contradictory data and other taxonomical opinions. The connections between specimens, names and concepts in taxonomy can be many-to-many, and there are no gold standard tests for selecting 'correct' connections, because 'correct' may not apply in all those cases (the majority) where we just don't know enough yet.

This is the world of taxonomy and PTPs. Jamming these square pegs into round database holes doesn't deal with mutual inconsistencies at all. If you see taxonomy as an ongoing process, then trying to 'solve the mutual inconsistency problem' is definitely not a taxonomic goal. Why should the database cart be leading the taxonomic horse?
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html