Hi Tony,
- 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)
Yes, but five of the additional fields are empty in most cases, so there is not really that much savings in terms of bytes. Also, there is an increased client-side cost in terms of reliably parsing canonicalName in the first example.
Incidentally, I assume you meant:
dwc:genus=Philander dwc:specificEpithet= opossum
In the second example above?
Also noting that the in- between ranks subfamily/infraorder/subphylum etc. do not have corresponding pre-named elements at this time.
Agreed -- that was my #1 reason why the existing set of terms is "broken", in that there is no way to provide canonical versions of records of intermediate ranks, unless scientificName is used and its definition violated by excluding scientificNameAuthorship.
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.
Agreed! Consistency trumps accuracy!
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.
Right -- that would need to be determined and explicitly indicated in a definition for canonicalName.
Can I stop now?
Sure, OK... I think I will too.
Aloha, Rich