[Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string

[Wolfgang Lorenz]

Well yes, I'm working with zoological names but maybe there's no substantial
barrier for developments .... and yes probably there's no need for a lot
more terms to communicate theroretical standards and issues of biodiversity
informatics. TDWG people seem to have done a great job already, in my
opinion. However, I can't see such  convincing progress in contents of
databases, - namely progress concerning the central issue of taxonomic names
in the major name aggregators! Don't you all think we are running into
serious trouble with that massive load of unresolved misspellings, homonyms,
phantom names out there??...
Just take a look, for example, into GBIF's "Kingdom unknown" dump (and be
aware that  GBIF is the messenger of too many data errors right now). Even
such ridiculous things like the following can still slip in and stay there
for years without being noticed (instruments misidentified as taxa):

http://data.gbif.org/datasets/resource/8174

It makes me believe something essential is still missing. If it is true that
computers can "learn to understand" what human brains have successfully used
for a quarter millenium, that is Linnean nomenclature, I imagine it could be
useful to have a computer-digestible & human-readable format for pure
nomenclatural information.
That's why I'm testing that "UNAS" idea on my set of names in Coleoptera
Carabidae (36.000 species, ca. 100.000 available names when I include
secondary generic combinations). Some months ago, David Remsen posted an
important question and didn't get an answer because nobody knows: How many
available names do we have? Based on my dataset, I'd say some 5-6 million
names, - and we really need to know them if we want to make progress, sort
out misspellings, etc.!
Yes, the "protonym" idea is flawed because of homonyms, but you can set up a
unique NameAnchorString where you add the precedence information to all
homonyms, - something like this (the initial "ZS-", by the way, stands for
Zoological Species-group name, because of cross-kingdom homonyms):

"ZS-Carabus_gyllenhalii/
Nebria_gyllenhalii"
"ZS-Carabus_gyllenhalii(2)=Carabus_blakistoni"

Such unique name anchor strings could be stored and resolved with additional
information (author, date, publication, type material, etc.) in a central
place, ideally in an authoritative ZooBank for zoological names, etc. In
this way, it could become the complete inventary of all available names, -
something that all other players can rely upon.
That is, of course, nothing but a vague idea and a little experiment at this
moment, - but maybe worth half a cent... (I can show more examples to
colleagues who might be interested).

regards,

Wolfgang
--------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany


2009/11/24 <dipteryx at freeler.nl>

> Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Wolfgang Lorenz
> Verzonden: ma 23-11-2009 14:32
>
> 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.
>
> ***
> For safety's sake I had better point out that this statement is only true
> for those who regard "taxonomy" and "zoology" as interchangable
> equivalents.
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>