[Taxacom] Identification key software

[Mike Dallwitz]

- From: Fabio Moretzsohn
- To: Taxacom

> I would like to hear from people who have experience using Lucid Key or similar software to produce identification keys.

There are some relevant links at 'Methodology of Interactive Keys and 
Descriptive Databases' (http://delta-intkey.com/www/methodology.htm), 
including 'Comparison of interactive identification programs' and 
'Principles of interactive keys'.

'Comparison of interactive identification programs' 
(http://delta-intkey.com/www/comparison.htm) was written in 2000, but the 
programs described haven't changed much in their important features since 
that date. Also, the comparison criteria could be applied to any other 
programs that you're evaluating.

I'd like to update this publication to include later versions of the 
programs, and other programs such as 3I and Xper2 that weren't around when 
I did the original comparison. I'm reluctant to attempt this until there 
is a reasonably good SDD-DELTA translator in both directions. This would 
make comparison much easier, as the programs could be tested with the same 
data.

An SDD-DELTA translator would also facilitate comparison of the 
capabilities of the data formats themselves.

At http://delta-intkey.com/www/data.htm there are packages in which the 
same data are used with different interactive-key programs. 'British 
ferns' (http://delta-intkey.com/britfe/index.htm) uses Intkey and NaviKey; 
'Fruit fly pests of the world' (http://delta-intkey.com/ffa/index.htm) 
uses Intkey, Lucid2, and Lucid3; and 'Anastrepha and Toxotrypana' 
(http://delta-intkey.com/anatox/intro.htm) uses Intkey and Lucid3.

'Principles of Interactive Keys' 
(http://delta-intkey.com/www/interactivekeys.htm) contains a small section 
on 'History of interactive keys', with a table showing when various 
important features of interactive keys were introduced. It's surprising 
how many recent programs lack many of these features. As I said in a 
review of a paper describing one such program:

"It's a very primitive program, and it's essential to discuss this in the 
paper. Does it have /any/ features that are an improvement over other 
programs? /If/ it does, it must be explained to potential users that the 
program is, at present, just a test bed for these features, and shouldn't 
be used as a serious identification tool, because of the many other 
important features that it lacks - some of which were available in Goodall 
(1968) and Morse (1971)."


- From: Timothy Jones
- To: Taxacom

> If I had to write an interactive key today I would use Lucid or Excel as my manager

A good special-purpose editor (such as the Lucid Builder or the DELTA 
Editor) will have better facilities than Excel for entering descriptive data.

> easy to check both positive and negative dependency issues with Lucid

The Lucid Builder (V3.5.3) doesn't enforce character dependencies. For 
example, it's possible to record a taxon with 'wings absent, wings blue'. 
To avoid confusion, it would be better if Lucid used a different word for 
its 'dependencies'. A large dataset will typically contain hundreds of 
dependency errors if dependencies haven't been enforced during its 
construction.


I've posted this on both Taxacom and DELTA-L 
(http://delta-intkey.com/www/delta-l.htm). The latter might be more 
appropriate for any further discussion of technical details.

-- 
Mike Dallwitz
Contact information: http://delta-intkey.com/contact/dallwitz.htm
DELTA home page: http://delta-intkey.com