[Taxacom] A romp through an aggregator

Tue May 25 20:22:57 CDT 2010

Thanks, Dan, for the link to Extract Cours Zool 1812. I believe I have also read that some of the organisms described as foraminifera by Lamarck were actually bryozoans, so it is still possible that they refer to the same organism. Maybe the König, 1825 reference might clarify matters, or someone who knows these organisms from either a foram or a bryozoan perspective (or preferably both! - the elusive "general specialist"...)

Regards - Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Lahr [mailto:daniel.lahr at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 11:06 AM
To: Stephen Thorpe
Cc: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A romp through an aggregator

HI Tony,

The index to foram names lists Extract Cours Zool 1812 AND Histoire
Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertebrés, tome 2 1816 as referring to the
same organism. Interestingly, they list Lunulites as a member of
Polyzoa (a Bryozoan group). Perhaps Lamarck considered them Bryozoans?
I think it is just a mistake and the original one is the foram and the
later one a Bryozoan.

HEre is the link to the index of foram names:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_6cKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=lunulites+lamarck+1812+foraminifera&source=bl&ots=-beovrZV0_&sig=M3T1zH3gfDzuXBvTeXNMCoQ-dC4&hl=en&ei=NXD8S4e-AYOKlwf_9sjQDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Anyway, I can't access Tome 2 of the Histoire on BHL, but here is the
Extract COurs Zool on BHL, clearly listing them as forams, just go to
page 26:

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/41308#38

cheers,

Dan

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> Just to confuse matters further regarding Lunulites, according to the Nomenclator Zoologicus, Lunula Koenig, 1825 is in fact a replacement name for Lunulites Lamarck, 1812 (the senior homonym!)
>
> http://www.ubio.org/NZ/search.php?search=Lunulites&selectall=Check+All&colname=on&colcategory=on&colauthority=on&colcomments=on&page=&vol=
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> To: RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz; mesibov at southcom.com.au; dremsen at gbif.org
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Wed, 26 May, 2010 12:41:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A romp through an aggregator
>
> Interesting discussion. Bob's particular instance is triggered by the existence of genus level homonyms created by taxonomists in the absence of good aggregation resources of the day which might have averted this...
>
> On a separate but indeed parallel note, I am interested in tracing the nature of the genus Lunulites described by Lamarck, 1812 in Extr. Cours Zool., 26., apparently a protist (perhaps a foraminifer), not the same as Lunulites Lamarck, 1816, a bryozoan, which latter name is still in general use but should not be, having been replaced by Lunula König, 1825 (which has another later homonym, Lunula Hitchcock, 1865, an ichnofossil, currently unreplaced...).
>
> Anyway if any person can shed light on the nature of the Lamarck, 1812 instance of Lunulites I would be interested. The full title of the work is "Extrait du Cours de Zoologie du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, sur les Animaux sans vertèbres..." but BHL does not appear to have it online at this time.
>
> (All in the course of preventing more data errors of the type just indicated by Bob)
>
> Regards to all - Tony.
>
> Tony Rees
> Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
> CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
> GPO Box 1538,
> Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
> Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
> Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
> e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
> Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
> Personal info: http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kevin Richards
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 9:15 AM
> To: Bob Mesibov; David Remsen (GBIF)
> Cc: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A romp through an aggregator
>
> Not sure why all these efforts have to be so competing?  There are obvious benefits of both approaches...
>
> We need a way to make these efforts work together, and I suspect that the answer may be a faster feedback loop, from data source, to aggregator (s) back to data source.  One of the best ways to pick up errors/issues is to aggregate the data (including wikis) (top of the top down), then the best way to fix it is to provide feedback to the data provider (bottom of the bottom up), so they can either fix the issue, or improve the data flow into the aggregators.
>
> Eg
>
> Data provider  ->  regional aggregator  -> global aggregator / wikis
>     ^                                              |
>     |                                              v
> Feedback  <-  data use / issue spotting  <-  portal (eg EoL)
>
>
> Of course "data use" could happen at any point in this cycle, but I don't think that the "quality" of the data at any point should make any part of the cycle "better" than the other part??  Just indicate that some pert of the cycle needs improving/updating/etc, no??
>
> Kevin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Mesibov
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 12:20 a.m.
> To: David Remsen (GBIF)
> Cc: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A romp through an aggregator
>
> David,
>
> I'll be out of contact for a few days but will try to respond quickly. I think two things are being confused here. First, we have people who want my (or anyone's) data, and we'd like an efficient way for those people to get the data. Second, we have projects which are aspiring (I won't say claiming) to be the best possible in-between data brokers. It should be obvious that I don't have much time for the project approach. The first matter is different, because it goes to the heart of what Stephen Thorpe was asking: who wants what data, and why? There's flexibility implied there that isn't possible with pre-structured data. Sets of names linked to sets of specimens are not the whole story, because the names and IDs are works-in-progress, and because beyond taxonomic and specimen data there really is a lot more to biodiversity that cannot be easily structured with a data mark-up protocol. If the only biodiversity information available is the kind that can
>  be served between databases, then we don't need taxonomists (or biologists, for that matter). The most efficient way to link answer-seeker and answer-supplier is with a phone number, an email address or an online forum. The next most efficient way is with bottom-up resources, including the wiki-style builds that Jason Mate prefers. The aspiring middlemen just aren't up to the job. They literally don't know what they're handling.
> --
> 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
> Webpage: 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
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>

-- 
Daniel Lahr
-------------------------------------------------
PhD candidate
Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
U Massachusetts- Amherst
319 Morrill Science Center, Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003