[Taxacom] How good is Zoological Record's harvesting of taxonomic data? [was Latin anyone?]

[Neal Evenhuis]

Actually, Zoo Record's problem is not a language barrier -- it *was* (not now apparently - however see below) -- reflective of what was being received in the British library system. If no one sent anything in, they did not abstract it. How they missed our journal is a mystery, though, since it is received by the Natural History Museum and other places in the UK ....

But that was another error in the 1990s when there were problems in catching things. They *should* have improved their harvesting techniques since then. However ....they missed (at least one) paper with new taxa published in 2008 by a MUCH larger publishing house than us (Elsevier):

http://bit.ly/cMVlYm

Go figure ...

Since most have to pay to see their harvesting results (online or hard copy subscriptions), perhaps they should pay US for finding things they missed? :-)

-Neal
________________________________________

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:31:26 -0700 (PDT)

From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>

Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Latin anyone?

To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>

Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

Message-ID: <416059.34304.qm at web114213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com<mailto:416059.34304.qm at web114213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1



Here is an ironic name missing from Zoological Record (ION):

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dactylomyia_vockerothi

no language barrier here (unless we need a translator for Australianized American English!)