[Taxacom] globalnames?

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 9:10 PM
> These lists are probably the sorts of taxonomic products that unsettle
> me the most.  They are lists of names purporting to be lists of
> unambiguous and inviolate species entities/concepts but in most 
> cases there is no way to connect one with the other, other than to 
> assume they are following the prevailing taxonomic wisdom. Which 
> of course might change next week.
> 
> In our case these lists are part of legislation and thus inherit power
> far greater than the science and semantics behind them.
> 
> It is all a bit of a worry...
> 
> On the other hand, if the names in question were linked online to a
> documented taxonomy circumscribing the intended concept/entity, 
> which was in turn connected to a populated disambiguator, all 
> would be sweet and peace and harmony would rule the earth.  :)

***
I will refer to what I wrote on 22 September:

 " What the non-taxonomist will need (even if he does not realize it)  
   is the taxonomic information indicated by the name (as used in that 
   particular case). In what sense is the name used: how is the taxon 
   circumscribed? That is the information that routinely should be 
   included. In the case of a name with a lively history this is likely 
   to be vital (possibly literally), and its absence may be truly 
   disastrous.

   There is a lot of education to be done in this respect. The 
   non-taxonomist is very unlikely to realize that four 'text strings', 
   each with the same botanical name but including a different 
   (lengthy) author citation are one-and-the-same-thing, while the
   same botanical name "in the sense of the FNA" and "in the sense 
   of the Flora Europaea" may be vitally different. "

As to the "linked online to a documented taxonomy circumscribing 
the intended concept/entity, which was in turn connected to a 
populated disambiguator", if this means an online resource which
disambiguates names by circumscription, then that would be
a good idea. As far as I can tell (?) no such resource exists 
(the 'database mentality' not lending itself to that approach?).

Paul