[Zoobank-list] RE: ZooBank Data Objects

Tue Mar 6 20:39:03 GMT 2007

I think we're discussing two separate issues here.  The first concerns the
scope of ZooBank's "realm" -- e.g., whether or not certain unavailbale names
are of importance to users of ZooBank (I wholeheartedly agree with Chris
that they are).  The second concerns issues of prioirty of content and
authority of content.  That is, what are the most urgently needed services
we wish ZooBank to provide, and how should we prioritize the building of
ZooBank's content.  On this, I find myself agreeing with Wolfgang's
semtiments. But these are not mutually exclusive, nor even competitive
issues.  We can scope the role of ZooBank broadly, but focus more narrowly
on initial content generation (while certainly not preventing the
accumulation of content that falls outside the identified priority areas).

Regarding the question of who best should manage certain parts of the global
universe of biodiversity data (e.g., ZooBank vs. GBIF vs. uBio etc.), I
think there are alternate views about this, and from my perspective, these
are not yet close to being resolved. I am increasingly of the belief that
the core unit of data exchange for nomenclature should be what I have been
calling "usage instances" (I would be more than happy to abandon this
moniker in favor of a better one, if someone could propose such).  That is,
I find very little merit in establishing the notion of a "name" as something
that exists outside the context of usage instances, and so I think that the
GUIDs should be assigned to the usage instances, not the names.

>From the ZooBank perspective, then, certain usage instances fall under the
governance of the ICZN Code -- these include original descriptions of new
names, typifications, emmendations, first reviser, etc.  But just because a
particular usage instance doesn't fall under governance of the ICZN Code per
se, doesn't mean it is of no interest to ZooBank.  Non-code-governed usage
instances are also important from a nomenclatural perspective, because they
form the basis of notions such as "prevailing use" (for example).

So, I envision a global pool of usage instances of *all* organism names (all
Codes, plus vernacular and other non-goverened names) -- something on the
scale of what uBio is focused on.  Then certain subsets of these usage
instances are recognized as having special meaning to certain organizations.
For example, the aforementioned usage instances that involve nomenclatural
acts relevant to ICZN would be of special interest to ZooBank.  Other usage
intances of nomenclatural relevance to the ICBN would be of particular
interest to IPNI or IF; and of course the bacteriological registry would
concern itself with usage instances associated with bacteria names.

The exact role of ZooBank in the broader picture will need to be clarified,
but certainly elements of data quality would be a large part of those
services, as well as obvious roles such as identifying which name-usage
instances have nomenclatural standing under the ICZN, and how the rules of
the Code apply to them.

Aloha,
Rich
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
  and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

  _____  

From: zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org
[mailto:zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lyal
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:13 AM
To: Zoobank Discussion List (ICZN)
Subject: RE: [Zoobank-list] RE: ZooBank Data Objects

I would suggest that although the register must be of Available names, it
also has to cover those names which are not available.  One of the problems
we face is the number of unavailable names in the literature that need to be
researched each time cataloguing work is done.  These need to be 'nailed'
just as much as the available ones.  In fact, as we are thinking about
developing registration systems for published names, the reasons why a name
might be unavailable are captured by default.  I recognize that the list of
unavailable names is possibly infinite, but there are many such names that
do fall within the realm of usual taxonomic practice - published (or
manuscript) names that fail to satisfy one or more articles of the Code.
The ICZN already maintains a list of rejected names - this is the logical
extension.

Chris

Christopher H. C. Lyal, 

Department of Entomology

The Natural History Museum

Cromwell Road

London SW 7 5BD

UK

tel: +44 (0)207 942 5113

  _____  

From: zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org
[mailto:zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Faunaplan at aol.com
Sent: 06 March 2007 09:56
To: zoobank-list at afriherp.org
Subject: [Zoobank-list] RE: ZooBank Data Objects

Thanks for all those detailed new info! 
>From explanations and examples given it seems clear that a GUID supported
naming scheme needs to be more inclusive, not being restricted to
nomenclatural acts as traditionally governed by the Code. 
So why not divide the issue in two chapters:

- one related to ZooBank's "realm", - i.e., Code-compliant, available
zoological names. 
- another one comprising all those "name instances" (incl. misspellings,
misidentified names, in litteris names) as they occur in off- and online
publications, on specimen labels, etc.
The latter "realm" may be better governed by other initiatives like uBio?
(or GBIF's "Electronic Catalogue of Names"?) that are already collecting ALL
names, including names of bacteria, plants, etc. and even including
vernacular names?
I'd like to give urgent priority to the first chapter, the second chapter
could be written as a long-term step-by-step process which may even lead to
a better co-ordination of the realms of botany, zoology, bacteriology...

In my opinion, one of the functions of ZooBank that is most urgently needed
is to serve as a reliable register of all AVAILABLE names in zoology. As you
know, currently we even don't have a reliable list that tells us which
genus- or family-group names are already pre-occupied! Nomenclator
Zoologicus and Zoological Record are excellent springboards for a search but
they are incomplete and do not provide information about availability of
names etc. 

Best wishes,
Wolfgang
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

-- 
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/20070306/e8d90fbc/attachment.htm