[Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string

Mon Nov 23 12:53:35 CST 2009

I have to admit that I'm a bit unclear on where this thread is going.  Are
we simply trying to come up with a new set of terms to help remove ambiguity
in our conversations?  If so, I'd suggest that we start with the glossary
here:

http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/LinneanCoreDefinitions

...and refine/expand as needed.

Or, are we specifically trying to facilitate communication and/or data
presentation from electronic indexes and other taxonomic databases (i.e.,
the markup tags people have been proposing)?

In either case, many of us have begun using the term "Protonym" to refer to
what Wolfgang describes as "UNAS" below. "Unique Name Anchor Strings" isn't
really good for this purpose because they are not unique (homonyms), and
they imply more than just "strings" (i.e., they are more in the "data
object" end of the specrum, not the "sequence of text characters" end of the
spectrum).

Granted, the word "Protonym" (defined as "The first person or thing of the
name; that from which another is named.") has at one time been used with a
different meaning within the fungi community (see comment by F. Bungartz on
the LinneanCoreDefinitions page linked above).  However, Paul Kirk has
assured me that this definition is not widespread, and that the word
"Protonym" is more appropriate in the context described here.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Wolfgang Lorenz
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:32 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string
> 
> Dear all,
> Peter asked "Maybe someone can make a proposal, or describe 
> what they use?"
> 
> Let me expand the topic a bit by asking: What are we doing 
> with names in databases?
> 
> First, we want to store information that we get from primary 
> or secondary sources (specimen labels, literature, databases, 
> web pages, observation notes...). Names attached as accepted 
> names to such information can be termed "chresonyms" (in a 
> wide sense), or "VerbatimNameUsage".
> I would enter such names as verbatim as possible while, of 
> course, they need to be readable. For example, when a species 
> name is cited as an epithet only, but the genus is mentioned 
> in the publication title, the implied complete binomen should 
> be entered. Author and date can be entered verbatim, if 
> given. Some databasers might want to annotate the corrected 
> spelling of a misspelled name, but this should be made explicit.
> 
> Second, we need to interpret names entered from data sources, 
> so we need our own accepted set (or alternative sets) of 
> names. The best we can do here is stay with perfectly 
> Code-compliant names based on up-to-date classifications. 
> Such names do not include author and year, but as an 
> additional information (e.g., in a separate data field) such 
> info is often very useful.
> 
> Error-free interpretation of all names is very much a 
> handwork of the taxon specialist, so far.
> Misspellings and misapplied names are not the only impediment 
> for automated interpretation. One more reason is the 
> considerable number of species-group names that are 
> alternative generic combinations. Such (mainly zoological) 
> names are not easily found, even in many recent catalogues.
> Biodiversity informaticians are seeking to develop tools that 
> can, at least, perform a reasonable pre-interpretation. In my 
> opinion, there is a way to support development of such tools, 
> - and I have already mentioned the idea in previous postings:
> 
> It's because each available taxonomic name has an "anchor" 
> name, that is the binomen attached to the type material. 
> Hence, Unique Name Anchor Strings (UNAS if you like) can be 
> given for each name that is governed by the Code.
> 
> So, in summary, we could have the following,
> e.g.:
> 
> <VerbatimNameUsage>Idiochroma dorsale Pont.</VerbatimNameUsage>
> 
> <AcceptedName>Anchomenus dorsalis</AcceptedName> 
> <AcceptedNameAuthorDate> Anchomenus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 
> 1763)</AcceptedNameAuthorDate>
> 
> ... and the complete inventary of "UNAS" for the above 
> example would read something like:
> <UNAS>ZS-Carabus_dorsalis</UNAS>
> <UNAS>ZS-Carabus_dorsalis/Idiochroma_dorsale</UNAS>
> <UNAS>ZS-Carabus_dorsalis/Platynus_dorsalis</UNAS>
> <UNAS>ZS-Carabus_dorsalis/Agonum_dorsale</UNAS>
> <UNAS>ZS-Carabus_dorsalis/Anchomenus_dorsalis</UNAS>
> 
> Best wishes,
> Wolfgang
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany
> 
> 
> 
> 2009/11/22 Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>
> 
> > Maybe someone can make a proposal, or describe what they use?
> >
> > Not a rule that everyone has to follow, but a suggested form that 
> > people can use in conversation and when naming their 
> database fields.
> >
> > So what so you call these forms of the name:
> >
> > Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771)
> > Felis concolor Linnaeus, 1771
> >
> > and what do you call these forms of the name:
> >
> > Puma concolor
> > Felis concolor
> >
> > So they can be properly understood in conversation and in this form
> >
> > <whatevernameforthis>Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 
> > 1771)</whatevernameforthis>
> >
> > <whatevernameforthis>Felis concolor</whatevernameforthis>
> >
> > - Pete
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Dmitry Mozzherin 
> <dmozzherin at eol.org
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to illustrate how Biodiversity Q/A works, 
> and also get 
> > > a
> > clear
> > > clear understanding of terms used in GNI. What is the difference 
> > > between 'Scientific name' and 'Scientific name string'?
> > >
> > > Here is the question in full:
> > >
> > >
> > 
> http://biodiversity.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-is-the-differen
> > ce-between-scientific-name-string-and-scientific-name-ter
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Dima
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > 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
> > GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
> > About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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