[Taxacom] the hurdle for all biodiv informatics initiatives

[Richard Zander]

Phylogenetics leads to underlexicalization, in which there are no words (as scientific terms) for real things (IMHO, paraphyletic groups). This is not the same as over-synonymization, which is something we are used to and can deal and are alert to. The lack of scientific names, when caused by a "scientific" analysis quite unlike differing opinions that generate synonymy, is deadly to other fields.
 
_______________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
richard.zander at mobot.org
 

________________________________

From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Mon 2/22/2010 8:59 PM
To: Bob Mesibov; TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] the hurdle for all biodiv informatics initiatives



I think classifications play a role in bioinformatics databases that is independent of how taxonomists might view those classifications. Speaking from the perspective of Wikispecies, we try to choose a sensible classification, based on the current literature (including the phylogenetic literature), and we tend to adopt any new classification unless there is a particularly good reason not to (such as clearly being disharmonic with the rest of the literature, and lacking phylogenetic justification). Inescapably though, IMHO, a classification in the context of a biodiversity database really is primarily just a filing system, and while we try to choose a classification 'sensibly', there is no claim that it is 'correct' in any phylogenetic sense. If we follow a new classification that taxonomists/systematists reject, then they should publish a rejection of it, which Wikispecies will probably then follow in turn ...

Stephen

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Mesibov [mesibov at southcom.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 3:42 p.m.
To: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] the hurdle for all biodiv informatics initiatives

David Patterson wrote:

"Classifications can also be released.  In due course (within the next few months) the classifications will be released into GNA so that they are available to anyone who wishes to use GNA services.  That is, we are making headway. In my view, it is critical that the design of the system is fully dynamic so that we don't allow dated copies of information to predominate over current information."

Could you expand on that, please? Taxonomic publications sometimes appear containing new classifications which the relevant specialist community doesn't accept. Remind us how 'the system' will balance majority/minority view and 'dated'/current, and also just which 'system' you're referring to?
--
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html

_______________________________________________

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 <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 <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here