[Zoobank-list] GBIF GUID Workshop Report

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Frank,

> Retrospective registration can, in my view, only be done from the original
publications.
> Secondary lists or databases can only be applied if they can guarantee
that the original
> literature was checked (which they normally cannot do).

I agree that Registration needs to have high standards.  However, it's not
clear to me that "Registration" is necessarily identical to "GUID Issuance".
In other words, I see no reason why ZooBank must follow the paradigm that
GUID issuance=Registration.  Indeed, I believe some of the scenarios for how
registration would work involve issuance of a GUID prior to designation as
"Registered".

Also, I think at least some of the major nomenclatural databases are based
on careful examination of original literature (e.g., the Catalog of Fishes
certainly is).

> Retrospective registration will probably be a twofold process: First
getting a
> reference list through obtaining the names from Zoological Record, Neave,
and
> Sherborn and bridging the gap between Sherborn and ZR, and then (slowly)
> validating the names by checking (and probably digitizing!) the original
descriptions
> (would be a link to the proposed project to digitize the major natural
history
> libraries in London and the States, forgot the acronym). Sherborne seems
to be
> quite reliable, Neave is erratic and so was Zoological Record some years
ago
> before they introduced their current quality control mechanisms. The
validating
> step is an enormous task and needs substantial funding. Therefore we go
for
> registration of new names first and get this established in the framework
of
> the current code.

All of this makes good sense to me -- but is not necessarily entangled with
the role of GUID issuance, provided that GUID issuance and "Registration"
are separate things.

Aloha,
Rich