| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Armand Turpel | Feb 14, 2012 12:41 am | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 14, 2012 1:01 pm | |
| Armand Turpel | Feb 15, 2012 12:59 am | |
| Roderic Page | Feb 15, 2012 1:50 am | |
| Paul Kirk | Feb 15, 2012 1:55 am | |
| greg whitbread | Feb 15, 2012 5:05 am | |
| Chris Thompson | Feb 15, 2012 8:03 am | |
| David Patterson | Feb 15, 2012 8:07 am | |
| Roderic Page | Feb 15, 2012 9:12 am | |
| Doug Yanega | Feb 15, 2012 10:40 am | |
| Paul Kirk | Feb 15, 2012 10:51 am | |
| Roderic Page | Feb 15, 2012 11:23 am | |
| Armand Turpel | Feb 15, 2012 11:39 am | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 15, 2012 12:47 pm | |
| Jim Croft | Feb 15, 2012 1:06 pm | |
| Curtis Clark | Feb 15, 2012 5:49 pm | |
| Tony...@csiro.au | Feb 15, 2012 7:19 pm | |
| Roderic Page | Feb 15, 2012 10:18 pm | |
| Jim Croft | Feb 15, 2012 10:29 pm | |
| Armand Turpel | Feb 16, 2012 5:12 am | |
| Roderic Page | Feb 16, 2012 8:24 am | |
| Doug Yanega | Feb 16, 2012 9:45 am | |
| Chuck Miller | Feb 16, 2012 11:57 am | |
| Bradley Boyle | Feb 16, 2012 2:45 pm | |
| Richard Zander | Feb 16, 2012 3:10 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 16, 2012 3:24 pm | |
| Frederick W. Schueler | Feb 16, 2012 3:31 pm | |
| Chuck Miller | Feb 16, 2012 4:14 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 16, 2012 4:28 pm | |
| Chris Thompson | Feb 16, 2012 7:05 pm | |
| Kim van der Linde | Feb 16, 2012 7:13 pm | |
| Neal Evenhuis | Feb 16, 2012 7:27 pm | |
| Kim van der Linde | Feb 16, 2012 7:38 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 16, 2012 7:40 pm | |
| muscapaul | Feb 17, 2012 12:16 am | |
| Dr Brian Taylor | Feb 17, 2012 12:23 am | |
| Armand Turpel | Feb 17, 2012 1:25 am | |
| Chris Thompson | Feb 17, 2012 7:03 am | |
| Chris Thompson | Feb 17, 2012 11:23 am | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 17, 2012 1:09 pm | |
| Chris Thompson | Feb 17, 2012 2:04 pm | |
| Tony...@csiro.au | Feb 17, 2012 2:32 pm | |
| Richard Pyle | Feb 17, 2012 2:51 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 17, 2012 3:16 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 17, 2012 3:18 pm | |
| Richard Pyle | Feb 17, 2012 3:22 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 17, 2012 3:37 pm | |
| Richard Pyle | Feb 17, 2012 5:06 pm | |
| Tony...@csiro.au | Feb 17, 2012 5:18 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 17, 2012 5:27 pm | |
| Curtis Clark | Feb 17, 2012 7:39 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 17, 2012 8:04 pm | |
| Richard Zander | Feb 18, 2012 9:26 am | |
| Richard Zander | Feb 18, 2012 9:59 am | |
| Richard Pyle | Feb 18, 2012 11:33 am | |
| Curtis Clark | Feb 18, 2012 6:45 pm | |
| Richard Pyle | Feb 18, 2012 8:59 pm | |
| Paul van Rijckevorsel | Feb 19, 2012 12:36 am | |
| Roderic Page | Feb 19, 2012 5:48 am | |
| Paul van Rijckevorsel | Feb 19, 2012 7:36 am | |
| Roderic Page | Feb 19, 2012 8:09 am | |
| Paul van Rijckevorsel | Feb 19, 2012 8:58 am | |
| Curtis Clark | Feb 19, 2012 8:59 am | |
| Curtis Clark | Feb 19, 2012 9:49 am | |
| Frederick W. Schueler | Feb 19, 2012 10:29 am | |
| Richard Pyle | Feb 19, 2012 12:14 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 12:45 pm | |
| Bob Mesibov | Feb 19, 2012 2:23 pm | |
| Walker, Ken | Feb 19, 2012 2:36 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 2:38 pm | |
| Bob Mesibov | Feb 19, 2012 2:54 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 2:56 pm | |
| Walker, Ken | Feb 19, 2012 3:08 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 4:05 pm | |
| Bob Mesibov | Feb 19, 2012 4:07 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 4:38 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 5:09 pm | |
| Curtis Clark | Feb 19, 2012 5:18 pm | |
| Bob Mesibov | Feb 19, 2012 5:33 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 5:50 pm | |
| Kenneth Kinman | Feb 19, 2012 7:27 pm | |
| Weakley, Alan | Feb 19, 2012 7:47 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 7:50 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 7:52 pm | |
| Curtis Clark | Feb 19, 2012 8:13 pm | |
| Stephen Thorpe | Feb 19, 2012 8:22 pm | |
| Dr.B.J.Tindall | Feb 19, 2012 11:08 pm | |
| 43 later messages | ||
| Subject: | Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Armand Turpel (arma...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | Feb 17, 2012 1:25:19 am | |
| List: | edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacom | |
I'm not a taxonomist or a biologist but a simple computer scientist who have to fight nightmares when taxonomy hits his door.
There are different levels of validation of taxons in our database or species observation files we receive. Here a few examples:
Crouan{?} ex Nyl. > ????
SULZER > Sulzer
Schmitt > Schmit, Schmith, Schmidt, Schmitd, Schmid : we need the right Schmi*
Muller > Müller, Mueller: Some one couldn't find ü on his keyboard
1903 > 1907, 1902 or no year
(Schrank, 1789) > Schrank, 1789
Bombasta testosterosa (Schwarzeneggerii, 1971) > Family of Bodyaceae or Brainaceae or, hey, what's this?
Stilbospora angustata Pers. 1801 > Is it a synonym and if yes of what?
Onthophagus somalicus > Is it a homonym?
Then there are lsids, genetics and quantic effects ...., next week as promised!
Nevertheless I enjoy this discussion which, in my opinion, is really necessary.
a+ arm
On 17/02/2012 00:10, Richard Zander wrote:
It seems to be best that informatics deals best with as objective, factual information, minimizing the gray area.
Regarding "subjective," however, taxonomists wrestle mightily with decisions every day, trying to make reasonable and fact-based name changes of benefit to all users of taxonomy. They use discursive logic based on examination of dozens or hundreds of specimens in the context of evolutionary theory, and this is not particularly subjective to me.
Yes, deciding which name is "correct" ("valid" for botanists) is a problem for those not familiar with the subject matter. Using the latest name is a good rule of thumb, although I've argued against the newest molecular phylogenetic names interminably in the past.
One might make an analogy with scientific theorization in other fields. Which theory is right, photon or wave? Is the world round or flat? Is the red shift a property of an expanding universe or a function of decreasing energy associated with intervening gravity wells? Is the value of pi different if you have a large enough circle, like one around the whole universe? Is the black maple a species or only a variety of the sugar maple?
Note that the above are, however some are strange, scientific questions. Scientific intuition helps solve them. Each question in valid/correct names needs a FermiLab of scientists to do the molecular, growth, ethology, allozyme, biogeography, cytology, population, and etc. studies needed to get a definitive answer.
This is why it is easy to say decisions are subjective when they are merely poorly funded. If every informatics person spent half his/her time in biosystematics work, these problems would be less "subjective."
* * * * * * * * * * * * Richard H. Zander Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
-----Original Message----- From: taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Chuck Miller Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:58 PM To: Roderic Page; taxacom Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names
Dear Rod,
I would propose to extend your phrase to "person(s) x in publication y asserted that two names are synonyms or lexical variants of each other" The assertion of related names occurs in a publication by that/those person(s). Publication y's assertion should just be an objective fact and immutable.
But, the sticky wicket comes when point 6 is posed: "Which of all the related names is the best one to use to refer to the organism right now"? The issue of best is invariably subjective.
Chuck
here
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List Taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List Taxa...@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here





