Sorry, typo in my second example just posted, for
dwc:genus=Philander opossum
Read:
dwc:genus=Philander
(Of course)
- Tony
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content- bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees@csiro.au Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2010 9:54 AM To: m.doering@mac.com; deepreef@bishopmuseum.org Cc: Chuck.Miller@mobot.org; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; dmozzherin@eol.org Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwCscientificName: good or bad?
Hi folks,
I'm trying to stay quiet now, obviously with no success...
Rich wrote:
I don't really agree with Tony on the "clutter" argument for introducing
a
single "canonicalName" term to replace the parsed uninomialNameElement
[aka
"genus"], infragenericNameElement [aka "subgenus"], specificEpithet, and infraspecificEpithet. (Side question to Tony -- would canonicalName
include
"var.", "f." etc., hence obviating the need for TaxonRank as well?)
Answers:
- It's really a question for the data receivers. I.e which of these is
more efficient to tranfer/ingest/parse - based on a consistent data structure across all ranks:
Either this (12 elements to ingest and parse):
dwc:taxonID=10400156 dwc:parentNameUsageID=10400152 dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum Linnaeus, 1758 dwc:canonicalName=Philander opossum dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758 dwc:taxonRank=species dwc:taxonomicStatus=valid dwc:nomenclaturalCode=ICZN dwc:namePublishedIn=Syst. Nat., 10th ed., 1: 55. dwc:taxonRemarks=Corbet and Hill (1980), Hall (1981), Husson (1978), and Pine (1973) used Metachirops opossum for this species. Reviewed by Castro- Arellano et al. (2000, Mammalian Species, 638). The name D. larvata Jentink, 1888, is a nomen nudum. Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species for Holothylax Cabrera, 1919. dwc:vernacularName=Gray Four-eyed Opossum dc:source=http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=10400156
Or this (18 elements to ingest and parse):
dwc:taxonID=10400156 dwc:parentNameUsageID=10400152 dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum Linnaeus, 1758 dwc:genus=Philander opossum dwc:species=Philander dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758 dwc:taxonRank=species dwc:family= dwc:order= dwc:class= dwc:phylum= dwc:kingdom= dwc:taxonomicStatus=valid dwc:nomenclaturalCode=ICZN dwc:namePublishedIn=Syst. Nat., 10th ed., 1: 55. dwc:taxonRemarks=Corbet and Hill (1980), Hall (1981), Husson (1978), and Pine (1973) used Metachirops opossum for this species. Reviewed by Castro- Arellano et al. (2000, Mammalian Species, 638). The name D. larvata Jentink, 1888, is a nomen nudum. Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species for Holothylax Cabrera, 1919. dwc:vernacularName=Gray Four-eyed Opossum dc:source=http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=10400156
(Now repeat for each of the remaining 2m or so rows)
As stated before, I can generate either format, but the first is more concise for the receiver. (maybe this is not a killer reason though). Of course the parser settings to either generate or just upload canonicalName would be different for the two cases.
Noting that the higher ranks are blank in this example, however they will be needed for at least some other records so they have to be there when passed as DwCA (though not as XML I guess). Also noting that the in- between ranks subfamily/infraorder/subphylum etc. do not have corresponding pre-named elements at this time.
To this:
(Side question to Tony -- would canonicalName include "var.", "f." etc., hence obviating the need for TaxonRank as well?)
I was hoping you would not ask that!!
I think that canonical names in Botany but not Zoo. (don't know about prokaryotes, probably these are like Botany??) would keep the infraspecies marker/s in there as they are required by the relevant Code (sorry to bring that up again), but would be happy either way - maybe this has been discussed and resolved elsewhere earlier e.g. in old Linnean Core/TCS discussions. Personally if there is a rank element there, I would like it to see it filled in all cases for consistency.
A question back: for "genus (subgenus) species" names as commonly found in some groups (molluscs, crustaceans come to mind), is the subgenus omitted to produce the canonical name? I imagine it would, since it is an indicator of taxonomic placement, not a part of the name, but would be happy to hear that confirmed.
Can I stop now?
Cheers - Tony
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content