[Taxacom] globalnames?

[Geoffrey Read]

Yes. I'm not a botanist so that's no business of mine. If you put in
'Hohenbuehelia petaloides' in a search you get only a link to H.
'petalodes', so something additional to simply reflecting CoL is happening
at EOL.  I mentioned EOL not to criticize, just to point out the
difference.

This example has been paraded, and I was sort of expecting it would be
simple for one of those who signed their names to it (all Taxacom listers)
to explain the nuances, since it is obviously important to them, so they
all must understand it. Right? (well one says he doesn't, & that's ok). 
My opinion is that an example that appears to strongly feature a minor
spelling anomaly ain't a good choice. But that may have been why it was
chosen - we'll hopefully find out.

Geoff

On Fri, September 18, 2009 7:33 am, David Patterson wrote:
> The reason EOL has a particular spelling will be because that is the
> spelling provided by our content partner (Catalogue of Life).  EOL is
> an indexing and aggregating initiative.  Concerns about accuracy
> should be directed to the source databases either directly or by
> contacting the appropriate curators or by adding a comment to the
> species page.
>
> David Patterson
>
> Sent from my mobile
>
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 10:05 PM, "Geoff Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. But to rain, or lightly drizzle on yr parade Kevin -
>> reading
>> it through I'm confused on the taxonomists' petalodes/petaloides
>> spellings
>> down the years, and also whether you've made a mistake yourselves on
>> that
>> between boxes 3 & 4 in the Schulzer combination, or is it all part
>> of the
>> demonstration? And why does EOL have its entry as petalodes when
>> mostly
>> it's petaloides elsewhere, the former 'petalodes' possibly the
>> original
>> author's orthography? Possibly it's crystal clear to any botanist
>> but I
>> only have so much time :).  Maybe a bit too finicky an example?
>>
>> A zoologist would certainly not use the abbrev Bull. for Bulliard
>> (more
>> potential for obfuscation), and would I hope have given the date,
>> Bulliard, 1780 for the basionym.