[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Fri May 1 20:42:57 CDT 2015

Fried or poached? :)

Anyway, the "core topic" of the thread kind of became pointless when a number of posters refused to admit that many uses of taxonomic names are not associated with any well-defined entities that one might call "taxonomic concepts" or "circumscriptions". There are many cases where simply examining a single specimen is sufficient to be able to recognise the species again (and many cases where it isn't).

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 2/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Dilrukshan Wijesinghe" <dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>, "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Saturday, 2 May, 2015, 1:37 PM

 I was just hoping (no "dictating"
 going on) for some focus on a topic of importance -- without
 haring off on other topics that have been hashed over
 repeatedly on this forum.  The "decline of monography"
 and "the evil of data aggregators" can have and have had
 their own lengthy strings (and I and many others I'm sure
 have their various and largely sympathetic thoughts on these
 issues).  But, both are tangentially related to the
 topic which I (and a number of others) thought was on the
 table in this string:  sec, sensu, precision in
 connecting an alleged identification with a name, "taxonomic
 concept mapping" (clear bounding of the "taxonspace" around
 the type specimen 'flag') and ways to go about best
 delineating that and communicating it to the benefit of
 current and future taxonomists and other users of taxonomic
 information.

 In my humble opinion (IMHO) having some discipline about
 staying "on topic" would make this a more beneficial forum
 for all.  But, far from being "supreme ruler of the
 cosmos", I am "but an egg".

 ---Original Message-----
 From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]

 Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 8:15 PM
 To: Dilrukshan Wijesinghe; TAXACOM; Weakley, Alan
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

 @Alan Weakley: When you become supreme ruler of the cosmos,
 THEN you can dictate what other people can or cannot talk
 about on Taxacom...

 --------------------------------------------
 On Sat, 2/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
  To: "Dilrukshan Wijesinghe" <dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>,
 "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Saturday, 2 May, 2015, 11:47 AM

  "Aggregators are rubbish".
  "Taxonomists are under citation pressure" to split
 their  work into smaller articles.

  And I thought we were talking about ways to better 
 communicate best taxonomy and unambiguous information
 about  the individual units (based closely on cited
 underlying
  literature) to the diversity of taxonomy-users (including
  ourselves) across generations.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf Of Dilrukshan Wijesinghe
  Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 7:20 PM
  To: TAXACOM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

  Rod wrote:
  "I'm not denying that this is valuable, but it frustrates
 me  that there is minimal connection to the
 underlying  literature. What I see missing from many
 checklists, and  aggregators as well, is the ability to
 drill down to the  underlying science."
  That's why aggregators are rubbish. The idea that
 there  should be one (or a few) sites providing
 taxonomic  information on all organisms is ludicrous,
 yet this seems to  be the "philosophy" that drives the
 "aggregator industry".
  Every day we use specialized sources for information on
 a  variety of topics that are of importance to us.
 Obviously,  that is not seen as a huge problem; in
 fact, that diversity  and specialization is understood
 to be necessary aspect of  high-quality information.
  Here are some specialized taxonomic websites that are
 vastly  more reliable and useful than any aggregator:
  World Spider Catalog
  http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/

  The Goblin Spider Planetary Biodiversity Inventory http://research.amnh.org/oonopidae/index.php

  Pseudoscorpions of the World
  http://museum.wa.gov.au/catalogues-beta/pseudoscorpions

  Jumping spiders (Arachnida: Araneae: Salticidae) of
 the  world http://www.jumping-spiders.com/index.php

  Catalogue of Pholcidae
  http://www.pholcidae.de/

  Orthoptera Species File Online
  http://orthoptera.speciesfile.org/HomePage/Orthoptera/HomePage.aspx

  Cercopoidea Organised On Line
  http://rameau.snv.jussieu.fr/cool/index.php?&lang=en

  Coreoidea Species File Online
  http://coreoidea.speciesfile.org/HomePage/Coreoidea/HomePage.aspx

  World List of Marine, Freshwater and Terrestrial
 Isopod  Crustaceans http://www.marinespecies.org/isopoda/

  Global Taxnomic Daabase of Gracillariidae (Lepidoptera) http://www.gracillariidae.net/

  Psocodea Species File Online
  http://psocodea.speciesfile.org/HomePage/Psocodea/HomePage.aspx

  Cassidinae of the world - an interactive manual
 (Coleoptera:
  Chrysomelidae) http://culex.biol.uni.wroc.pl/cassidae/katalog%20internetowy/index.htm

  Priyantha

  D. P. Wijesinghe
  dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com

  _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
  _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.