- tdwg-content - lists.tdwg.org

Thanks for the Clarification
by Peter DeVries 04 May '11

04 May '11

Reading the tea leaves it seems that the TDWG Illuminati determined that * indeed* the current DarwinCore was not good for the semantic web and formed a group to create one. This explains why my work initially characterized as a small data set about mosquitoes in the original KOS draft and is now not mentioned at all. Thank your for clarifying how TDWG operates. - Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Email: pdevries(a)wisc.edu TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> & GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge Bases A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/> Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

DwC for the semantic web
by Steve Baskauf 04 May '11

04 May '11

Dear colleagues, With the exciting development of Semantic Web technologies, many of us already need a way to consistently express DwC in RDF. In particular, we need it to meet the requirements for GUID resolution (as expressed in the TDWG applicability guide) and to be able to share and aggregate diverse kinds of biodiversity metadata in the Linked Open Data world. After several months of development, stimulated by the tdwg-content discussions of last Fall, we would like to offer an ontology for consideration, based on Darwin Core terms: Darwin-SW: General site: http://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/ Using namespace dsw = "http://purl.org/dsw/" It is a candidate for general usage, but we do not claim it is _the_ solution, and greatly respect the efforts by others to develop similar ontologies, from which we have learned much. However, for DSW, we wanted to use existing DwC terms for classes and data properties whenever possible and only create new terms when there were no existing terms that would do the job. We did feel that there was a need for clarity in how resources should be typed (i.e. rdf:type property) and for object properties that expressed the relationships among classes unambiguously. Please see the Rationale, DesignPrinciples and ClassesAndTypes wiki pages at the above address. In the ontology, we sought to embody relationships among classes based on our perception of the community consensus of what the classes represent and how they are related to each other, as expressed in posts to the tdwg-content list. Thus each class is documented carefully on the wiki with hyperlinked references to specific tdwg-content posts. We also sought to clarify or resolve issues that were raised in the list discussion, most notably the relationship among Occurrences and the evidence that documents them (i.e. tokens), and the role of "individuals". See wiki pages for the Token, Occurrence, and IndividualOrganism classes. The ontology is now in use at http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/, and we intend to use it more widely. We would value your opinions on the fitness of this ontology as a general solution for consistently expressing DwC concepts in RDF. Sincerely, Steve Baskauf and Cam Webb steve.baskauf(a)Vanderbilt.Edu cwebb(a)oeb.harvard.edu

4 9

tdwg-content] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: If you need something for referring to a population, then it is probably best to do it as a related class]
by Nico Cellinese 04 May '11

04 May '11

> we don't have to grudgingly choose between artificial and natural. I actually do. I am not interested in representing, trying to define, or even talking about artificial entities but do not stop others from doing so. > One can allow for the obvious that species names and definitions are > formulated and written down by humans (though other animals and machines > are sometimes capable of this too), and vary over time, but at the same > time nature has a strong corrective word in shaping these definitions, > and only if they are close enough to some real natural order are our > inferences also reliable enough. By modeling species as human > conceptualizations, we are not necessarily throwing out the baby with > the bathwater, i.e. saying they are not real. See pp. 66-67 here: In fact, what I meant to say is that they are hypotheses waiting to be tested, whether we use one concept over another. If they turn to be artificial, the only reason to keep those around is purely historical, if anyone cares about that. You may, many don't. I don't. > http://docs.google.com/a/richard-boyd.net/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=cmljaG… Yet another opinion. I could present a long list of others that would completely differ but I don't think this is the right mailing list. Nico > > > On 5/4/2011 12:58 PM, Nico Cellinese wrote: > > Hi Pete, > > > >> Hi Steve, > >> > >> I may have overloaded the term specimen to make the explanation > >> easier to follow. > >> A specimen could be an individual or it could be part of an individual. > >> To some extent you need to think about how these models will be used. > >> If you subscribe to the model that a species is whatever a > >> taxonomists says it is then it is difficult to make statements like. > >> X% of the world's species will be extinct by 2050. > >> If you mean a species as defined by the concept documented at this > >> URI which is supported by these specimens, images, and DNA then you > >> are on firmer ground. > > > > I would have stopped here! If someone wants to point to a series of > > objects to indicate his own concept of a "species", then that's ok. > > That's a convention we can work with. > > > > Everything else you talk about below seem to be a confused mashup of > > "species" as a taxon and "species" as ranks. > > > >> Species in the natural world do a pretty good job recognizing those > >> individuals that are appropriate mates. In other words members of > >> their own species. > > > > Really? Maybe in animals but everywhere else I don't think so! And > > what about asexual organisms? I guess they do not deserve the status > > of "species". So, the biological species concept you are referring to > > can't be universally applied = not a good concept to use for ALL > > organisms, right? > > > >> Are we modeling species or variations in human conceptualizations of > >> species? > > > > Is there anything else out there besides the human conceptualization > > of species? Do we have an absolute concept of what a species > > represent? Last time I checked we have been arguing about this for the > > past century and more. Species defined by the 25+ species concepts > > out there can't possibly be real. They are defined by human > > conceptualization = artificial. The only think we can clearly try to > > discern are clades and often those clades may correspond with > > someone's concept of a species. In other words, you can take the rank > > of species and point it at a node that define a taxon. Or you can > > take the rank of species and point it to an assemblage of lineages, > > regardless if that assemblage represents a monophyletic group or not. > > Traditionally recognized species are most likely polyphyletic anyways. > > > >> I stick with this. Assuming you don't have a hybrid individual. That > >> individual is one species. The fact that human may disagree on what > >> species it is a human issue. > > > > What do you really mean by individuals? Are species created by the > > gods and we just can't figure out what they meant? Human issue? We, > > humans came up with this impossible to define concept. Individuals are > > just that: individuals. The individuals = species hypothesis has been > > argued in the literature and is not an accepted notion by far (note: I > > am not saying I agree or disagree, this is just another non-absolute > > concept). But maybe you don't mean it that way. > > > >> Again, Are we modeling *species* or variations in human > >> conceptualizations of *species*? > > > > Your statement is recursive. You have an idea of species that is above > > all of the other variations on the theme. I don't understand what you > > mean and that's why I think there is a confusion between the usage of > > "species" as a taxon and "species" as an arbitrary rank. > > > >> Which of these is of primary importance to decision makers and > >> non-taxonomist biologists? > >> Part of the problem with various publications relating to ontologies > >> and taxonomy is that their species models entail a specific > >> phylogenetic hypothesis. > > > > Even in the lack of a phylogenetic framework, every species is a > > hypothesis. When we lump and split we generate hypotheses. A new name > > points to a new hypothesis. Adding a new /genus/ to a /family/ or a > > new /species /to a /genus/ refines and modifies the original hypothesis. > > > >> In the real world taxa are not as clean as some would like to make > >> them out to be. > > > > In fact, the only way we can discover a little more clarity is through > > phylogenies. When it comes to low level taxa, population studies help > > a lot too. > > > >> Each individual is a unique combination of thousands of separate gene > >> lineages which often do not follow clean monophyletic paths. > > > > But as you stated above you equate individuals with species. if > > that's correct, then you admit that individuals can be polyphyletic, > > and as such do we really care about polyphyletic entities? As such you > > admit that species as you define them are artificial. > > > >> I would argue that most of those who work with species related data > >> see them as useful typological constructs which in general follow the > >> biological species model. > > > > I actually don't and I can name many others who don't. The rank of > > species may be useful to many as communication tool but the way it is > > applied vary a lot. The biological species concept is not widely > > accept and certainly not followed by the vast majority as you indicate. > > > > The only think we can really achieve from an informatics standpoint is > > to reconcile objects (specimens, images, sequences, descriptions, > > etc.etc.) with the many names that may have been associated with those > > and leave the rest (philosophical masturbation) to the users. > > Reconciling names with concepts, given the nature of the concepts and > > the idiosyncratic way that names have been historically used, is a > > Quixoterian challenge. > > > > Cheers, > > Nico > > > > > > > >

1 0

49 million
by Bob Morris 04 May '11

04 May '11

This is incredibly important for scholarly publications on the web http://odontomachus.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/crossrefs-gift-of-metadata/ -- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 IT Staff Filtered Push Project Department of Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Harvard University email: morris.bob(a)gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)

1 0

Re: [tdwg-content] If you need something for referring to a population, then it is probably best to do it as a related class
by Nico Franz 04 May '11

04 May '11

Hello all: I have a few inserted comments, hopefully with some clarifying effect: On 5/4/2011 10:54 AM, Peter DeVries wrote: > Hi Steve, > > I may have overloaded the term specimen to make the explanation easier > to follow. > > A specimen could be an individual or it could be part of an individual. > > To some extent you need to think about how these models will be used. > > If you subscribe to the model that a species is whatever a taxonomists > says it is then it is difficult to make statements like. > > X% of the world's species will be extinct by 2050. > > If you mean a species as defined by the concept documented at this URI > which is supported by these specimens, images, and DNA then you are on > firmer ground. > > Species in the natural world do a pretty good job recognizing those > individuals that are appropriate mates. In other words members of > their own species. > > Are we modeling species or variations in human conceptualizations of > species? > >> Assuming that there was only one individual organism identified >> there is really one one species (or hybrid). > Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Please Nico C., don't take this one up! > > > I stick with this. Assuming you don't have a hybrid individual. That > individual is one species. The fact that human may disagree on what > species it is a human issue. > > Again, Are we modeling species or variations in human > conceptualizations of species? NMF: I believe there is a history of biodiversity database engineering that actually led some people, initially in Australia (Greg Whitbread?) and Europe (Berendsohn's group) to place more emphasis on modeling human conceptualizations of taxa. I understand this happened in the late 80s / early 90s. The motivation was, apparently, that no long-term consensus seemed available to model a single and sufficiently widely accepted taxonomy of, say, Central European vascular plant species or mosses. I believe that projects such as the Euro + Med PlantBase (http://www.emplantbase.org/home.html) are examples of the persistence (success?) of this 20+ year old practice. I think this is the kind of background that Steve is referring to. > > Which of these is of primary importance to decision makers and > non-taxonomist biologists? > Part of the problem with various publications relating to ontologies > and taxonomy is that their species models entail a specific > phylogenetic hypothesis. > > In the real world taxa are not as clean as some would like to make > them out to be. > > Each individual is a unique combination of thousands of separate gene > lineages which often do not follow clean monophyletic paths. > > I would argue that most of those who work with species related data > see them as useful typological constructs which in general follow the > biological species model. NMF: The solution of how to properly model things such as species in RDF, OWL (etc.) should ideally accommodate all "species concepts" (BCS, ESC, PSC, GSC, there's dozens), i.e. it should be neutral towards this issue. The examples below are too simple, ignoring for example cases such as pro parte synonymy, or a concept ("species") that appears unique and monophyletic to one author but (vastly) polyphyletic to another. To do an accurate mapping in that latter case (which is not super-common but it's real), I think one would have to come down on saying we're modeling human conceptualizations. They are not just that, so really it's not a strict dichotomy, meaning that by modeling conceptualizations we do not have to say "the species only exist on our heads", or "well, then anything goes". I agree (sheepishly) that it does come down to what the input data look like, and what the expectations are towards just accommodating the user community versus pushing them in a particular direction. Some of this also on p. 47 of this PDF: https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/jbi/article/view/3927/3852 > > /Aedes triseriatus/ owl:sameAs /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/ > > Others seem to see them as phylogenetic end nodes which entail a > specific phylogenetic history. > > /Aedes triseriatus/ distinctFrom /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/ > / > / > If you are primarily interested in understanding issues of ecology, > disease, diversity and conservation the former model is more > appropriate than the later. > > Respectfully, > > - Pete Regards, Nico Nico M. Franz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Director, UPRM Invertebrate Collection Department of Biology University of Puerto Rico Call Box 9000 Mayagüez, PR 00681-9000 Phone: (787) 832-4040, ext. 3005 Fax: (787) 834-3673 E-mail: nico.franz(a)upr.edu Laboratory website: http://academic.uprm.edu/~franz/ UPRM-INVCOL: http://uprm-invcol-project.tumblr.com/

2 1

Second Example - SPARQL Query for Mammals Expected in Wisconsin view by Order
by Peter DeVries 03 May '11

03 May '11

Here is another example based on a different query. *Mammals expected in Wisconsin* I have bundled the screenshots and the query into this bit,ly bundle http://bit.ly/lBTFDf The SPARQL Query Looks like this. Note I am only requesting a subset of the information about each of these species. PREFIX txn: <http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#> PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> PREFIX dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> PREFIX wisconsin: <http://sws.geonames.org/5279468/> PREFIX dbpedia_owl: <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/> select distinct ?s, ?o as ?image, ?kingdom, ?phylum, ?class, ?order, ?family, ?genus, ?sciname, ?cname, ?author where { ?s rdf:type txn:SpeciesConcept. ?s txn:inDBpediaClade dbpedia_owl:Mammal. ?s txn:isExpectedIn wisconsin:. ?s txn:kingdom ?kingdom. ?s txn:phylum ?phylum. ?s txn:class ?class. ?s txn:order ?order. ?s txn:family ?family. ?s txn:genus ?genus. ?s txn:hasScientificName ?sciname. optional {?s txn:thumbnail ?o. ?s txn:commonName ?cname. ?s txn:scientificNameAuthorship ?author}. } limit 2000 This uses the optional section so that those species that might not have a thumbnail or common name still show up in the query results. You can modify this query and run it yourself on http://uriburner.com/isparql/ Click on the "Advanced" tab to see the box for entering the query. - Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Email: pdevries(a)wisc.edu TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> & GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge Bases A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/> Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

A little more on TXN Species Concepts.
by Peter DeVries 03 May '11

03 May '11

Hi Steve, I thought I would follow up on something you wrote. Yes for now all of these SpeciesConcepts are to some extent *sensu* DeVries. But the goal is to have editors determine what specimens, images and related data should serve as guides to clarifying the species concepts. Since the Concept URI's are easily trackable they could be added to publications easily and those editors would receive publication like credit for their efforts. Since these are open and the editors are linked via URI's to the concepts they have contributed to the editor's contributions and citation rate can be easily tracked. * The original description should also be included in the species concept RDF. * Ideally the BHL would expose URI's for publications so it would be easy to link to them. Many have argued that the original descriptions should be cited when a reference to a species is made in a publication. However in most cases this would be asking the authors to cite a publication that they have never read. Also here is an example of one of the concepts that links to an etype page. (It would be nice if these etype URI's were cleaner and did not contain & that need to be escaped) HTML http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/MYQMc.html <http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/MYQMc.html>RDF http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/MYQMc.rdf The specific section of the RDF is <txn:SpeciesOriginalDescription rdf:about=" http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/MYQMc#OriginalDescription">  <dcterms:title>Original Published Description of Species Concept Stereopalpus vestitus se:MYQMc</dcterms:title> <dcterms:identifier> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/MYQMc#OriginalDescription </dcterms:identifier> <dcterms:description>LOD metadata about the original species description relating to Species Concept Stereopalpus vestitus se:MYQMc</dcterms:description> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource=" http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/MYQMc#Species"/> <dcterms:creator rdf:resource="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Thomas_Say"/> <dcterms:created rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear ">1824</dcterms:created>  <txn:hasEtypePage rdf:resource=" http://mcz-28168.oeb.harvard.edu/mcz/FMPro?-DB=Image.fm&-Lay=web&-F… "/> <wdrs:describedby rdf:resource=" http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/MYQMc.rdf"/> </txn:SpeciesOriginalDescription> If I had a PDF to link (or a BHL URI) to then the RDF would had the additional statements seen in the Cougar example. <txn:SpeciesOriginalDescription rdf:about=" http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#OriginalDescription">  <dcterms:title>Original Published Description of Species Concept Puma concolor se:v6n7p</dcterms:title> <dcterms:identifier> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#OriginalDescription </dcterms:identifier> <dcterms:description>LOD metadata about the original species description relating to Species Concept Puma concolor se:v6n7p</dcterms:description> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource=" http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Species"/> <dcterms:creator rdf:resource="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Carl_Linnaeus "/> <txn:hasBasionymName>Felis concolor Linnaeus 1771</txn:hasBasionymName> <dcterms:created rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear ">1771</dcterms:created> <dcterms:hasFormat rdf:resource=" http://assets.geospecies.org/spec_concept_uuid/603bebac-cc44-4168-bbf7-b11b… "/>  <wdrs:describedby rdf:resource=" http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf"/> </txn:SpeciesOriginalDescription> <rdf:Description rdf:about=" http://assets.geospecies.org/spec_concept_uuid/603bebac-cc44-4168-bbf7-b11b… "> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource=" http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Species"/> <dcterms:format>application/pdf</dcterms:format> <wdrs:describedby rdf:resource=" http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf"/> </rdf:Description> Respectfully, - Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Email: pdevries(a)wisc.edu TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> & GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge Bases A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/> Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

domains of object properties. was Re: DwC for the semantic web
by Bob Morris 29 Apr '11

29 Apr '11

I´ve been in Ecuador for two weeks with only a few hours of internet contact. Flying from Quite tonight. So I´ve only scanned the Design Document and may have done so too hastily. I´ll have more time next week to look at it and the ontology. However, meanwhile, I´ve posted the following unsurprizing comment there, and hope that anyone who responds here will also respond there. ----- It´s a little hard to understand why DSW object properteries should have domains but data properties should not. Keep in mind that the formal semantics of rdfs:domain is that if rdfs:domain P C then any use a P x forces a to have rdfs:type C. This constrains the extensibility of P and probably of the use of other ontologies where P might be useful. Specifying domains tends to close the world somewhat, and I see no advantage to that....Indeed, this is more naughty than anti'naughty sensu Bob Morris. ----- --Bob Morris On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf(a)vanderbilt.edu> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > With the exciting development of Semantic Web technologies, many of us already need a way to consistently express DwC in RDF. In particular, we need it to meet the requirements for GUID resolution (as expressed in the TDWG applicability guide) and to be able to share and aggregate diverse kinds of biodiversity metadata in the Linked Open Data world. > > After several months of development, stimulated by the tdwg-content discussions of last Fall, we would like to offer an > ontology for consideration, based on Darwin Core terms: > > Darwin-SW: > General site: http://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/ > Using namespace dsw = "http://purl.org/dsw/" > > It is a candidate for general usage, but we do not claim it is _the_ solution, and greatly respect the efforts by others to develop similar ontologies, from which we have learned much. However, for DSW, we wanted to use existing DwC terms for classes and data properties whenever possible and only create new terms when there were no existing terms that would do the job. We did feel that there was a need for clarity in how resources should be typed (i.e. rdf:type property) and for object properties that expressed the relationships among classes unambiguously. Please see the Rationale, DesignPrinciples and ClassesAndTypes wiki pages at the above address. > > In the ontology, we sought to embody relationships among classes based on our perception of the community consensus of what the classes represent and how they are related to each other, as expressed in posts to the tdwg-content list. Thus each class is documented carefully on the wiki with hyperlinked references to specific tdwg-content posts. We also sought > to clarify or resolve issues that were raised in the list discussion, most notably the relationship among Occurrences and the evidence that documents them (i.e. tokens), and the role of "individuals". See wiki pages for the Token, Occurrence, and IndividualOrganism classes. > > The ontology is now in use at http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/, and we intend to use it more widely. We would value your opinions on the fitness of this ontology as a general solution for consistently expressing DwC concepts in RDF. > > Sincerely, > > Steve Baskauf and Cam Webb > steve.baskauf(a)Vanderbilt.Edu > cwebb(a)oeb.harvard.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-content mailing list > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > -- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 IT Staff Filtered Push Project Department of Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Harvard University email: morris.bob(a)gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)

3 3

Re: [tdwg-content] DwC for the semantic web
by Ke Chung Kim 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

Dear Steve: Thanks for getting us information on the tdwg-content via email discussion. I am a taxonomist/systematist working with diverse insects and for the last two decades have been actively involved in biodiversity issues, specifically insect biodiversity. Although I have not followed your continued discussion on the issue last fall, I thought I should raise several points on individual, population and species in the context of the tdwg-contents: DwC for the semantic web. I am impressed with enthusiasm and dedication of the tdwg for biodiversity informatics. Assuming your focus is primarily in the taxonomic context, your effort related to bio-informatics has a considerable impact on the issues related to biodiversity homogenization and biodiversity assessment. This involves the first detection and establishment of invasive species that is expressed in terms of individual (specimen), population, or species related to location of discovery/detection and establishment of population in specific habitat unit. Similarly, biodiversity assessment involves the defined spatial unit and community structure and assemblage that consists of individuals and population of resident species that could be small numbers to several hundreds of species. I have not seen any discussion on the application of your effort under tdwg, although you may have already dealt with these issues of application for your work through your discussion. I would like to know the position of your group on these application for your current discussion on hand. Thanks for your response. K. C. Kim Ke Chung Kim, Ph. D., Dipl.-ABFE Professor Emeritus and Curator Department of Entomology, Frost Entomological Museum, 127 Headhouse #3; Tel: 814-863-2863; Fax: 814-865-3048 (ENT); Director Emeritus, Center for BioDiversity Research PSIEE, Land and Water Research Bldg., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A.; Tel: 814-863-0159; Fax: 814-865-3378 (PSIEE) Home: 213 Morningside Circle, State college, PA 16803-1347 Tel: 814-234-1718; Fax: 814-234-8327 Founding Chair, Board of the DMZ Forum, Inc., NY http://www.ento.psu.edu/Personnel/Faculty/kim.htm

1 0

Official World Tapir Day Website
by Jim Croft 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

http://www.tapirday.org/ hope you guys are celebrating... Jim

1 0