<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="2">Dear all,<BR>
this zoobank-list seems to have been silent for quite some time before the launch of zoobank.org prototype.<BR>
Since ZooBank is to play such a central role in the future of zoological nomenclature and biodiversity informatics (see, e.g., the recently updated GUID discussion), isn't it desirable to have a broader discussion & testing of prototype models?<BR>
<BR>
Here some thoughts (maybe almost 2 cents worth):<BR>
<BR>
In zoological nomenclature, we have three groups of names: family-, genus- and species-group names, each regulated by specific provisions in the Code. So why not organize ZooBank in these three sections?<BR>
For both family- and genus-group names, universal registers across the whole animal kingdom are needed, e.g. for quick homonymy check, whereas registers for species-group names could (should) be organised in practicable subsets. I can imagine separate lists for reptiles, fishes, birds, etc. would work fine - if taken care of by the communities of herpetologists, ichthyologists, ornithologists, etc.<BR>
<BR>
As for a genus-group names register, the online Nomenclator Zoologicus seems to me an interesting springboard/ prototype from where to start. What is still missing now could be added step by step, with icons indicating the progress of refinement in each name, e.g., <BR>
- name has been counter-checked with original publication, <BR>
- name has been checked for Code compliance, <BR>
- gender, <BR>
- type species and kind of type designation.<BR>
<BR>
For family-group names, a register similar to Nomenclator Zoological could be set up. Such a list should include, among other information, the correct/accepted stem of each name, because this was/ is frequently a reason of instability and it's the only easy way to check for homonymy.<BR>
<BR>
In my opinion, registers for species-group names will be the main challenge of ZooBank, - not only because of the sheer number of names, but because of the need to document the history of generic combinations (esp. the original combination!) for each epithet (including the variations of adjectival epithets). I hope this register will also clearly indicate the type of each epithet (invariable noun in apposition, genitive, or adjectival epithets with variable ending). <BR>
<BR>
As you can see, many of these desirable infos are not (yet) provided by the Zoological Record. <BR>
You might say the above points all refer more or less to the final version of ZooBank, whereas the first step is to be a register for new names only. <BR>
Well, I doubt that ZooBank could be functioning without solid indexes to existing names. E.g., how can you check for homonymy in the case of genus- and family-group names? <BR>
How to avoid new cases of primary homonymy in species-group names without having a list of primary generic combinations of epithets (esp. in large genera like Carabus, etc.)? <BR>
Just to mention two problems...<BR>
<BR>
In summary I'd say, ZooRec can contribute a lot, but a ZooBank prototype needs more specific features than ION.<BR>
<BR>
Best wishes,<BR>
Wolfgang<BR>
----------------------------------<BR>
Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</HTML>