[Taxacom] progress on globalnames.org

Fri May 15 03:11:19 CDT 2009

Dear Pete,

Your earlier post regarding mapping concepts to names to name usages  
appears to be very much inline with our thinking here and what I see  
as the logical framework for the GNA.   There is a point or two that I  
didn't follow entirely but overall I am happy to see our current  
thinking is congruent.  I do get a bit confused when I see  
nomenclatural issues intertwined with conversations about taxonomic  
circumscriptions.

I'm eager to develop the capacity to be able to collectively inventory  
these different taxonomic definitions with sufficient detail to  
evaluate circumscription in a meaningful way and see just how  
confusing the landscape is.  For some groups I'm sure it's a problem  
but I bet there are lots of areas where it's not really an issue at all.

We are evaluating mechanisms for our name and taxonomic catalogs that  
extend the initial uBio banks to utilise some sort of OpenURL-like  
mechanism for referencing and redirecting to nomenclatural and  
taxonomic resources.   I like the idea of retaining and utilizing the  
name that exists in the usage and then extending as needed to  
reference a specific concept.   Resolution of these provides a useful  
definition of the concept tied to the referent published treatment.

So if we had an easy way to inventory and resolve these with simple  
identifiers like yours I can imagine a process that enables reference  
by concept, instead of by name, to be simple.   I can imagine for  
example a tool like EoLs new refactoring of the uBio LinkIT (called  
MarkIT) that could make it really easy to find a name in a document or  
on a label, call a taxonomic catalog to find all treatments of that  
name (having dealiased the orthographic and nomenclatural bits) and  
provide a select list of relevant concepts that embed the taxon  
identifier into the usage.

We can't do any of these things without a physical architecture in  
place that makes it easy and attractive to build the sorts of indices  
we need to enable that degree of discovery and access.  But I think  
that is coming into focus now.

btw,  I suspect there are many cases where a common name is more  
stable than a scientific name.  I think scientific names are more  
precise because there are bodies governing their creation and use and  
they are ultimately tied to something real (types).

David R

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Remsen, Senior Programme Officer
Electronic Catalog of Names of Known Organisms
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat
Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: +45-35321472   Fax: +45-35321480
Mobile +45 27201472
Skype: dremsen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 15, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Peter DeVries wrote:

> Two of the reasons behind the use of scientific names are:
> 1) They are more stable than common names
> 2) The are more precise
>
> If you wanted to plot all the occurrence records of *Puma concolor*  
> in North
> America you would have to
> combine all the data under all the different scientific names. That is
> assuming that those observations
> are accurate to species.
>
> Also, I did not mention that despite general agreement that we have  
> one
> metapopulation between Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin,
> there is not general agreement over whether that should be called  
> *Aedes
> triseriatus* or *Ochlerotatus triseriatus.*
> *
> *
> Some of this has to do with groups having different priorities or  
> goals for
> scientific names. One group might believe that
> recognizing the most accurate taxonomic thinking is the most  
> important,
> other groups might believe that achieving goals
> 1 and 2 are the most important.
>
> I don't think this difference is going to go away. So a system that  
> lets
> them agree to disagree, but still allows them to work together on  
> other
> common goals might help science.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> - Pete
>
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>  
> wrote:
>
>>>>> On 15/05/2009 at 10:02 a.m., Peter DeVries  
>>>>> <pete.devries at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I did a check via Google Scholar for papers published this year that
>> mention the *Puma concolor*, and *Felis concolor.*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Both of these names for the same species are still being used.
>>
>> The general public may not know this is a possibility, but  
>> regardless of
>> the facts of this case, taxonomists usually think this situation is  
>> just
>> fine.  Whoops a daisy, chop off some Felis into Puma. Couldn't be  
>> easier.
>> A recombination probably has no effect on the species concept.  
>> There will
>> be a transition period (years, decades) - during which some will be
>> oblivious, or resistant to a genus change. And the change may not  
>> 'stick'.
>>
>>> The efforts would go much more quickly if we create identifiers for
>> species concepts.
>>
>> Such as 'Felis concolor' perhaps? But didn't someone already do  
>> that right
>> at the start of it all? There may be "over 4000 names in English"
>> (wikipedia) but we're alright here in taxonomy land, as we've got  
>> just one
>> basionym.
>>
>> Nomenclatural history can get very complicated, but I doubt you've  
>> chosen
>> a good example where confusion and uncertainty might occur at a  
>> species
>> level.
>>
>> Actually efforts would go much more quickly, especially for  
>> taxonomists
>> trying to sort out the rubbish online, if organizations collecting  
>> species
>> names only served up on the web name strings that are adequately
>> researched, at very least not prominently presenting trivial  
>> misspellings
>> without provenance, and carefully anchored names with authors,  
>> dates, and
>> citations, and, most important, provided good rapid methods for  
>> flags to
>> be added for indicating the many errors in their databases as soon  
>> as they
>> are noticed.
>>
>>
>> Geoff
>> --
>> Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
>> Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
>> gread at actrix.gen.nz
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>