[Zoobank-list] ZooBank

[Richard Pyle]

Dear Arie,

I concur with Anna's response to your note, but I'll also add a few
clarifying points.

ZooBank is not, first and foremost, about capturing the existing/historical
names (what we refer to as "retrospective registration").  The main focus is
to establish a path for the registration of future names.  While this may
seem like a trivial objective, it's important to keep in mind that most
estimates conclude that somewhere between 70 and 95% of all organisms
(many/most of which are likely to be zoological, though bacteriological may
eventually win out) have not yet been named; so the implementation of
ZooBank only for future names still encompasses the majority of animal taxa
on Earth.

Having said that, it would of course be absurd to develop ZooBank in a way
that did *not* accommodate existing/historical names.  To that end, the
ZooBank "Guiding Principles and Policies" document (recently circulated here
and elsewhere) aims to lay a foundation that encourages existing electronic
listings of names to make their content available to ZooBank, with the
interest of serving the broader taxonomic community.  The important point
here is that ZooBank can certainly exist, and serve a valuable purpose,
without the need for thousands of qualified clerks/typists.

Anna already alluded to scanning of literature.  I cannot over-emphasize how
profoundly this will change the way we access information about taxonomy.
Between the tools developed by initiatives like uBio and INOTAXA the
Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) and others, this capability is already
amazing, and will only get better.  More significantly, the actual
implementation of this is seeming less and less like a pipe-dream, and more
and more like a very achievable goal. Watch this space.

Like Anna, I agree that vernacular names are outside the scope of ZooBank.
However, to ignore their value to the broader consumers of biological
information would be outright foolish.  This does not mean that ZooBank
should deal with vernacular names (I don't think it should).  But it does
need to develop its technical architecture in a way that integrates to
broader efforts (like GBIF and EoL) -- which *do* need to deal with
vernacular names.  The less we continue to see each of these data
initiatives as separate, stand-alone efforts, and instead see them all as
pieces to a much larger (and cohesive) biodiversity information strategy,
the more likely we will actually achieve some of these seemingly idealistic
goals. What this will do is empower taxonomists to become themselves the
thousands of typists needed to enter the remaining data, and ensure quality
control.  Peer-review, the way it is now conducted (e.g., a journal editor
selects a few anonymous people to judge the quality of a submitted
manuscript) is nothing compared to what is possible with a cohesive,
interactive biological data infrastructure (Doug Yanega -- that's your cue.)
I could rant on and on about this, but it's already been articulated many
times by people with much more effective communication skills than I
possess.

I will say that I agree with you that so much of this stuff is confusing.  I
haven't met a single person who understands all aspects of it.  But I do
think there is value in pushing forward.  Speaking as an ichthyologist, I
can't tell you how much easier my life is because of the existence of the
Catalog of Fishes database.  And this is only the tip of the iceberg in
terms of how electronic databases and the internet can make our jobs (all of
our jobs) a lot easier and more productive. Certainly, we can choose to
perpetuate the status quo and let the rest of the world move on without us.
But I can't help but believe that we would do so at our own peril.

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 Arie W. Janssen
	Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:32 AM
	To: 'Zoobank Discussion List (ICZN)'
	Subject: [Zoobank-list] ZooBank
	
	
	Well, gentlemen .... and ladies of course (if there were any),
	 
	I've been reading the discussion, so far. There's been a lot of
idealism, a lot of discussion on details, on format etc. etc. 
	 
	I just wonder .... if we really want to build a ZooBank as seems to
be needed ... who the heck is going to pay the more than a thousand
(qualified) clerks/typists we will  need to actually DO the job, within 20
or more years ? Idealism is nice, but for heaven's sake, let's be practical
.... vernacular names ???? Why, why, why ??  Do you really want the
'tractorwieltje' (wordlwide known as Armiger cristata) included in ZooBank ?
Or similar ridiculous names in Dutch or other languages ?
	 
	I, for my sake, I am happy with the ICZN rulings and lists ....
everything additional might be nice, but again ... who's going to do the job
? Not me, for sure ! Are we going to make something like Wikipedia, where
everybody is allowed to improve somebody else's input ? Where's the value
then ? What we need is authority, and THAT's exactly what ICZN provides us
with ! Everything else to me seems superfluous, and confusing !
	 
	Best regards from a small Mediterranean island !
	 
	 
	Arie W. Janssen, Gozo, Malta
	ariewjanssen at waldonet.net.mt
	 
	
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"brighter than glass, and yet, as glass is, brittle"
	
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	 
	 

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




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