[Zoobank-list] Re: names Re: Zoobank-list Digest, Vol 9, Issue 6

[Adorian Ardelean]

Dear All,

 I think that an investment into such an INSTITUTION is of STRATEGIC
importance and it is not a matter of taxonomists alone.

Obviously, English is not my native language :-)  but you'll forgive me for
that.

Sincerely,
Adorian

On 9/13/06, Adorian Ardelean <mynature at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hello Geoff,
>
> I would argue that a taxonomist NEEDS those names that are passionately
> called here "rubbish names."  Otherwise you may discard important
> information.
>
> Here are SOME of my points:
> 1. If you are a taxonomist for sure you deal with names in literature
> published along the years. I doubt there is a taxa group in which seminal
> authors did not produce /or important taxonomic papers do not contain these
> so called "rubbish names".
> 2. Just think, errors can enter in the scene even after the text left the
> author's hands (as you go backward in time this is more and more common)
> 3. Museum specimens and inventories are not always in the hands of a
> specialist. Errors may be found on labels and in databases. Do we disregard
> these specimens because of a letter reversed/doubled/omitted/transliterated?
> A "rubbish" name may have got there not because of a careless taxonomist?
> 4. How many variants of specific epithets can we find for names derived
> from the *New Zealand* name? In the synonym list of a single species!
> 5. Would you consider the quality of a taxonomic paper based on names used
> alone?
> 6. There are lots of projects that record/digitize names from literature
> (good or rubbish) having in mind points 1-5.
> 7. BioIT can help and what was a nightmare in the past can be an easy
> solution in the future (of course for this to happen: the project needs
> stability to make sure that any brick (e.g. rubbish sorting) is there for
> tomorrow and nobody has to burn gas again to make the same brick). IT can
> transform a registry of names into something useful for everybody - not only
> for taxonomists, but everybody. I think and investment into such an
> INSTITUTION it is of STRATEGIC importance & it is not a matter of
> taxonomists alone. Avoid duplication and reuse the same effort in an array
> of tasks that fulfill taxonomists needs and beyond. Think with the future in
> mind and always flexibly accommodate past in your schema - because what you
> think is good & perfect now, WILL be past in the following moments.
>
> I hope my points will be understood in a positive way & I am not
> affiliated with uBio
>
> All the best,
> Adorian
>
> Dr. Adorian Ardelean
>
>  proiectul myNature
> str. Rascoala din 1907 nr 12
> Timisoara 300325
> Romania
>
> http://mybiosis.org/nature/portal.php?pagename=firstpage [a Romanian
> biodiversity-database]
> http://mybiosis.org/nature/portal.php?pagename=adorian
> <http://mynature.net/adorian.php>[CV]
> http://mybiosis.org/romanianorchids/ [Romanian Orchids]
> http://greendorf.com [botanical illustration]
> http://planktonnet.awi.de/portal.php?pagetitle=index
> http://www.ubio.org
> http://portal.ubio.org
> http://microscope.mbl.edu
>  http://starcentral.mbl.edu/biopedia
>  http://starcentral.mbl.edu/custar
>
> Yahoo messenger: transylvaniasan
> project coordinator of myNature project
>
>  *Ne vom întoarce într-o zi...
> Si cei de azi cu pasii grei
> Nu ne-or vedea, nu ne-or simti,
> Cum vom intra încet în ei.
> *Radu Gyr
>
>   IT Researcher
> AquaEcology
> Stresemanstr. 46
> 27570 Bremerhaven
> Germany
> phone: 0471-140-475
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Geoff Read < g.read at niwa.co.nz>
> > To: "Zoobank Discussion List (ICZN)" <zoobank-list at afriherp.org>
> > Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:28:34 +1200
> > Subject: Re: [Zoobank-list] zoobank prototype
> > I understand the desire to link all published data to the correct name.
> > Someone out there has published something vaguely biological and it
> > contains a misspelled name of a species. Obviously this is going to be
> > important information, and the species was accurately identified — yeah
> > right (after all they carelessly got the name wrong), but I shouldn't
> > prejudge it. Iubio and Ion can index it. Absolutely fine by me.
> >
> > But what has this to do with a register of taxa names? Why should anyone
> >
> >   need to devote any time at all to weeding out this rubbish name from
> > such a register when there is no logic to it being there? It simply
> > doesn't have any of the necessary indicators requiring it to be taken
> > seriously by a taxonomist, the most obvious of which would seem to be
> > its appearance within a taxonomic context.
> >
> > On a positive note — I am fairly confident that the author and 'original
> > description reference (article title) of animal species newly described
> > since 1978 are accurately represented in the current ZooBank search
> > interface under the 'name info' tag.
> >
> > As for the rest of the records ported from ION, well they are a very
> > mixed bag indeed. I would like to see them disappear, because they are
> > only unverified possibilities of names.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Geoff
> > --
> >    Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.co.nz>
> >     http://www.annelida.net/
> >
> >
> >

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20060913/01a04806/attachment-0001.htm