[Zoobank-list] GBIF GUID Workshop Report

[Doug Yanega]

Frank Krell wrote:

>Well, the gender agreement issue is something for the next edition 
>of the code to address, and ZooBank will always be code compliant.
>If gender agreement will be dropped (IF!), then, I strongly hope, 
>only in favour for the preservation of the original spelling (and 
>also giving up the undefined, hence confusing prevailing usage 
>concept; prevailing when? prevailing where?). Retrospective 
>registration can, in my view, only be done from the original 
>publications.

If we adopt a Registry of Names, and structure the data content 
properly, then there is no reason to abandon gender agreement. Each 
genus-level name, when registered, should (as part of its defining 
features) have its gender specified, BASED UPON THE O.D. (as Frank 
indicates) - and, similarly, when epithets are registered, their 
grammatical nature will likewise be specified (using the O.D.), so as 
to make the process of gender agreement *automatic*. Since the 
Registry will be online, there will be an interface where a 
species-level taxon name (recognized by its GUID) can be combined by 
users with different genera, and the ending will be altered (or not) 
to agree, as appropriate. In other words, to find out how to spell a 
name, you just look the taxon up in the Registry.

All this requires is that care is taken at the time of registration 
to ensure that the definition of the grammatical properties is 
*correct*, following the Code. This is one of the reasons I (and 
others) believe a review process is needed for registration.

However, I'll note that the converse (doing a lookup on a 
species-level GUID to reveal all the different combinations in use 
for that taxon) is a little different, as it requires the inclusion 
of data beyond the O.D., specifically involving taxonomic opinion. It 
is *not* necessarily going to be within the scope of Zoobank, 
accordingly. As Yde de Jong wrote:

>I agree it could be a good idea to split the responsibilities, 
>ZooBank taking care of the nomenclature and other resources (CoL, 
>ITIS, FaEu, ZooRec, FishBase, etc.) taking care of the taxonomic 
>concepts.

While I see some logic in this, it can also be argued that 
distribution of responsibility in such a fashion could also 
perpetuate significant redundancy of effort, and therefore a waste of 
our community's limited resources. Yes, I know that's political 
reality, but it isn't necessarily very efficient.

Sincerely,
-- 

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82