[Taxacom] globalnames?

[Peter DeVries]

People interpret the same paper differently. They will read the same paper
and assign different names to the same species. The repeatability of this
system is low.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>wrote:

> In order to make taxonomic names meaningful, they need to be linked to the
> relevant literature. Literature is a commodity that I understand, but "taxon
> concepts" just seem hopelessly wishy-washy to me. More effort (and funding)
> should perhaps go to making more of the literature freely available online,
> linked to taxon names in basically the same way that I do it on Wikispecies.
> If you want to know what so-and-so meant by Xus yus, read his paper...!
>
> Stephen
>
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [
> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of David Remsen (GBIF) [
> dremsen at gbif.org]
> Sent: Monday, 28 September 2009 8:29 p.m.
> To: Peter DeVries
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] globalnames?
>
> Peter,
>
> It is exactly the scope and intention of what we are working on at GBIF.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Peter DeVries wrote:
>
> >> 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
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------