[Taxacom] Genus Hamadryas Hübner, 1806 (or 1808)

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Dear Paul,

I have no problem with implementing improvements to my system as errors or deficiencies are pointed out. With respect to the statement that previously read " Invalid name (rejected work, refer ICZN Index)", against 325 names at this time (not yet a complete listing), I have changed this to "No nomenclatural status (included in a rejected work, refer ICZN Index)", presuming that this is correct, and that no shorter terminology is applicable.

I am of course aware of the view of some that biodiversity informatics is "the branch that goes into databases to harvest text strings which it then uses to create confusion about biodiversity". Actually I do not think that my activities fall into that category, but I will leave the judgement of that to others :)

Best regards - Tony


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sent: Monday, 15 March 2010 7:15 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Genus Hamadryas Hübner, 1806 (or 1808)

Van: Tony.Rees at csiro.au [mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au]
Verzonden: ma 15-3-2010 0:03

> Hi Paul, all,

> The question is not whether the titles

> (A) Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge [...]

> (B) Erste Zutraege zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge,

> both by Hübner, both undated I believe but elsewhere ascribed 
> to the years 1806 and 1808, are the same, but whether 
> the abbreviation " Samml. Exot. Schmett. could conceivably refer 
> to either of them, i.e. as cited in Nomenclator Zoologicus and 
> elsewhere (specifically LepIndex). 

***
If zoology is anything like botany, then such an abbreviation will 
be unambiguous. A separate issue is the exact standardization of the
abbreviation, but the work it refers to will not be in question. 
* * *

> You are correct that the appropriate application of Biodiversity 
> Informatics should ultimately be able to distinguish between the 
> two, but that aspect of the Global Names Infrastructure (apparently 
> to be termed CiteBank, see previous correspondence from Rich Pyle 
> I think) has yet to be developed.

> Regarding your second point, yes I was incorrect in using the term 
> unavailable to refer to either rejected names or junior homonyms, 
> I meant to say invalid, my apologies. 

***
Actually that is just as bad. The provided example page of Hamadryas
does make this (new?) error, apparently for the permanent record,
labelling junior homonyms and non-existing names (such as Hamadryas, 
1808) all as "Invalid name". A junior homonym is available but is 
an invalid name. A text string in a work rejected for nomenclatural 
purposes is not available and thus can not aspire to the status of 
"invalid name". If this is intended to take away the impression of 
biodiversity informatics as "the branch that goes into databases 
to harvest text strings which it then uses to create confusion 
about biodidiversity" this is less than succesful.

Somebody put forward the thesis that the best way to build a database 
is to give each use of a name in the literature its own entry in the 
database. Obviously, this is indeed the only really safe way to build
a database, and I am being more and more convinced that it is also 
doable (I see that TROPICOS is steadily moving in this direction)

Paul