 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
7 messages in edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacomspecimens examined lists, again| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Robin Panza | Aug 3, 1995 9:24 am | |
| Peter Rauch | Aug 3, 1995 9:43 am | |
| Bruce Neill | Aug 4, 1995 4:06 pm | |
| Lynn Kimsey | Aug 6, 1995 10:37 am | |
| Peter Rauch | Aug 6, 1995 11:10 am | |
| Julian Humphries | Aug 7, 1995 9:21 am | |
| Bruce Neill | Aug 7, 1995 12:42 pm |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | specimens examined lists, again | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Peter Rauch (pet...@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU) | |
| Date: | Aug 3, 1995 9:43:45 am | |
| List: | edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacom | |
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:24:24 EDT
From: Robin Panza <panzar at CLPGH.ORG>
Gary Noonan pointed out that, for entomologists, listing can be impractical because of the lack of individual ID numbers on so many specimens.
Gotta start someday, somewhere. (Fortunately, some museums/collections have started. Otherwise, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Perhaps he and other entomologists could follow the practice I've seen in ornithological papers, of listing localities and quantities, rather than individual specimen ID numbers.
Yes, this has been done often. The issue is whether or not there is adequate _documentation_, _somewhere_, of what material was actually studied.
eg: COLUMBIA: Sautata, 3m/3f; Jaraquiel, 1m/5f. PANAMA:
Darien, 4m/5f/3?.
Hmmmm, that brings up the whole separate, important, issue of community-wide authority control mechanisms ("authority files"), for all sorts of things of importance to collection-based data and studies, including taxonomies/classifications/determinations, personal/institutional/other names, and for places like colUmbia. Lots of people are using controlled vocabularies, some even use national/international standard references as the sources, but there's still a long way to go with authority control if collection information sharing/combining/use is going to become a norm.
Certainly, it would be nice to have in hand the ID numbers to be able to request the same individuals for another study, but, as Noonan has
More than nice!
pointed out, that can be impractical, from his standpoint as well as the amount of space (on paper or electronically)
Hardly an issue, even for insects.
and time (to type up, in either medium).
Definitely an issue, but not impractical --only poorly addressed still by many (but not all are detractors).
At least, using the above notation, others can judge (a) whether your sample sizes are believable, and (b) whether the geographic distribution of samples is believable.
How? Without re-examining the specimens, you really _are_ relying strongly on a _belief_ system, and are relying precisely on the data that you wish to confirm.
With the above information, I can always write to the author and ask for more information about some of the specimens, if I want to examine them.
Perhaps, but often not likely, if those specimens are not individually locatable. Which specimens will you be asking about? Where _is_ Gary anyway? Ohh...(sigh) Anybody know which specimens Gary studied?
With apologies to Gary, Peter