[Taxacom] saturday morning fun

Sun Nov 28 20:24:10 CST 2010

Hi Wolfgang,
I'm not sure that I entirely understand you, but, certainly there are limits to 
what Wikispecies (or Wikipedia) can offer, and these limits chiefly involve NOR 
(no original research). However, taxonomists should be publishing OR in primary 
taxonomic publications, and not on the likes of GBIF. Wikispecies can then index 
and integrate those primary taxonomic publications. There is no problem giving 
published specimen records on Wiki. Unpublished specimen records are unreliable 
anyway. But, primarily, Wikispecies provides links to literature, and classified 
literature citations, integrated into a single classification with alternative 
views explained. It is a giant filing cabinet. Even in cases where the taxonomy 
is disputed, Wikispecies allows you to explain all that and provide a sensible 
synopsis of taxa and literature.
Cheers,
Stephen

________________________________
From: Wolfgang Lorenz <faunaplan at googlemail.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: gread at actrix.gen.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Sun, 28 November, 2010 10:09:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] saturday morning fun

What if we just accept their promise to reach at full operational status in 
2011, but try to enforce some sort of "Darwinian selection" by bringing the 
products of those million dollar projects in juxtaposition with what the 
knowledgible people have on offer? 

Wikispecies seems to grow into a strong role, but .... If only there wasn't that 
tendency to exaggerate and give unrealistic promises (desease of all "big" 
projects?). What about those "five pillars" of wikipedia 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars)? Just wondering, do these 
not apply to wikispecies? 

Do those taxonomic concepts used in the default wikispecies classification 
represent the "neutral" opinions? Can wikispecies reach at "fully fleshed out" 
checklists as neutral opinions, just based on existing publications?
I'd say we better check out the limits of Wikispecies, - eventually we'll agree 
that we need more.

Think of GBIF overview maps, - which are also visible through the online 
Zoological Record,  iSpecies, etc. Many of these maps are not only highly 
incomplete but totally wrong and misleading. We can easily get a GBIF overview 
map for a species 

(e.g., http://data.gbif.org/species/13841957/overviewMap.png for the beetle 
Carabus granulatus) and display it together with our own reviewed map. It's 
quite easy to produce comparable maps (where each pixel represents exactly a 
half-degree grid cell). But probably we cannot do that with Wikispecies, as it 
will be more than just recording known facts without adding your own view?

Wolfgang

-----------------------------------------
Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany

2010/11/28 Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

good point Geoff
>
>perhaps it will sort itself out when they finally catch up with the fact that
>the beetle genus is now Marvaldiella ... though after 11 years, I'm not sure
>when that will be ...
>
>me thinks homonymy = egg in the face of many an "acronym"
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Sent: Sun, 28 November, 2010 1:31:06 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] saturday morning fun
>
>Many points probably, but looking at it again it sure is disconcerting
>that it's impossible to get to gbif genus Mimus pure bird only.
>
>The bird genus aggregated should be under
>http://data.gbif.org/species/16058468. But that only loads the apparent
>beetle genus titled page (albeit seemingly aggregated with the bird
>records) at http://data.gbif.org/species/13160516.
>
>Not much fun at all actually.
>
>On Sun, November 28, 2010 12:01 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>> I rather think Geoff is missing the point ... but at any rate, why is the
>> beetle
>> genus Mimus an accepted name on GBIF when it was replaced with a new name,
>> due
>> to the homonymy, in 1999  (11 years ago)??? See:
>> http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mimus
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
>> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Sent: Sun, 28 November, 2010 11:07:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] saturday morning fun
>>
>> The bird genus homonym is way senior to the beetle genus and on the beetle
>> genus page there is a disambiguation warning thus, with a direct link to
>> the bird genus.
>>
>> The name Mimus is ambiguous and also refers to:
>>
>>     * Kingdom: Animalia
>>     * Phylum: Chordata
>>     * Class: Aves
>>     * Order: Passeriformes
>>     * Family: Mimidae
>>     * Genus: Mimus
>>
>> But stir away. I tend to agree  an aggregator should be able to auto
>> prevent such Huh! moments.
>>
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>
>> On Sun, November 28, 2010  Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>> GBF has more than 267 million occurrence records.
>>> No doubt, there is some quality in that quantity - accessible for those
>>> who
>>> have plenty of time and knowhow to tickle it out. Much easier to see
>>> some
>>> of
>>> the most spectacular errors:
>>>
>>> E.g. this:
>>>
>>> GBIF informs us they have 4.485.773 records for Insecta Coleoptera.
>>> Of these, 643.863 georeferenced records ("from a total of 583.664
>>> records"
>>> [sic!]) are displayed on the map for a single nearctic species: "Mimus
>>> polyglottos", the Northern Mockingbird, a curculionid beetle species
>>> which
>>> has some subspecies belonging to birds.
>>>
>>> ..... but, okay, they wanted to arrive at full operational status in
>>> 2011
>>> (according to GBIF's own strategic plan)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
>8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
>Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
>gread at actrix.gen.nz
>
>--
>Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
>8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
>Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
>gread at actrix.gen.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
>