<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dear all,<br>
taxonomic names are the fundamental keys all across biodiversity informatics, but improved access to vital biodiversity knowledge is impossible without ZooBank. <br>
<br>
PURE and APPLIED nomenclature: PURE names are unambiguously fixed to type material, whereas APPLIED names are applied to taxonomic concepts/ opinions that can be ambiguous. Pure names are like perfectly fixed tags, but applied names need to be interpreted: An important difference.<br>
Like the Code, ZooBank must take care of the basic PURE nomenclature, primarily. However, ZooBank cannot do that without massive support from authoritative databases keeping track on APPLIED nomenclature. Who can provide that? By now, we should have learnt that it does not come automatically by scanning etc Only taxon experts can provide reliable records, - machines need expert stewards that take a look at what they are producing. Let us stop that nonsense production by industrialized automatic "name object" harvesting & interpreting tools!<br>
Remember what Bill Eschmeyer wrote: >We need a "Database" central -- an electronic "meeting place" for people making taxonomic databases< <br>
That's it! <br>
The central role of ZooBank and the roles of all those taxonomic databases out there would become clearer & more productive if we had that meeting place!<br>
Why not start it now, together with ZooBank. Why not send invitations to those people who are making or planning to make taxonomic databases? I guess there are many who do not even know about the ZooBank list. <br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany<br>
<br>
</font><div id='u8CBEAC74EFBAA47-D88-1FD9_DE_DE' class='aol_ad_footer'> </div>