[Taxacom] Biodiversity websites

[Michael Heads]

Dear Cyndy and Jim,

Yes, the TDWG site is very useful for sites' general specifications, but it doesn't point out the sites' weaknesses. 

If you did write a review, everyone would use it but no-one would cite it - just like a taxonomic revision...!

Michael

Wellington, New Zealand.

My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0


--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Cynthia Parr <parrc at si.edu> wrote:

> From: Cynthia Parr <parrc at si.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity websites
> To: "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
> Cc: michael.heads at yahoo.com, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:32 AM
> It would be cool if the TDWG project
> database also allowed for ratings and reviews.  I think
> that's what Michael is asking for.
> 
> Michael Galperin summarizes the state of molecular
> databases every year in the journal Nucleic Acids Research:
> 
> http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/suppl_1/D2
> 
> We discussed doing something like this at an ATOL meeting a
> couple of years ago. It would take a bit of cash to set up.
> At EOL we've got some annotations we've made to the
> TDWG project database that we'd be happy to share.
> Whoever take this and runs with it would be sure to have a
> highly cited review article every year.
> 
> 
> Cyndy
> 
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:03 AM,
> Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> http://www.tdwg.org/biodiv-projects/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:27 PM, <michael.heads at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > There now seem to be hundreds of so-called
> 'biodiversity' sites that list names and not much
> else, and are practically worthless (unless you want to make
> another list...). Some have additional information for a few
> taxa, sometimes even maps, but often of a very low
> standard.
> 
> 
> >
> 
> > There are some truly awful sites out there - I
> won't name names but I wish someone would! Has anyone
> written a review of the most significant sites, with a few
> lines giving their strengths and weaknesses - something like
> Frodin's invaluable book 'Guide to the standard
> floras of the world'? (Tony Rees' 'metasite'
> is a great step in this direction but doesn't actually
> review the sites it lists). Or does everyone just have to
> figure it out for themselves? Sites like GBIF and EOL have
> major flaws and blind spots as well as strengths, but it
> takes a while to work out just what they are. (Of course
> groups such as the birds of the US are always covered
> brilliantly, but that information is easily available
> anyway).
> 
> 
> >
> 
> > Michael Heads
> 
> >
> 
> > Wellington, New Zealand.
> 
> >
> -- 
> Cynthia Sims Parr
> Director of the Species Pages Group
> Encyclopedia of Life http://www.eol.org
> Office: 202.633.8730
> Fax: 202.633.8742
> 
> parrc at si.edu
> 
> Mailing address:
> National Museum of Natural History
> P.O. Box 37012
> MRC 106
> Washington, DC 20013-7012
> 
>