[Taxacom] globalnames?

[Peter DeVries]

> As far as I can tell (?) no such resource exists
(the 'database mentality' not lending itself to that approach?).
It is in development, probably as part of globalnames.

See

http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.xhtml


and

http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/iuCXz.xhtml

<http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/iuCXz.xhtml>- Pete


On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Paul van Rijckevorsel
<dipteryx at freeler.nl>wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------