Thanks David. Interesting results though - if I run Centaurea affinis Friv.
ssp. affinis var. Affinis then the canonical is returned as Centauzea
affinis affinis - note the change of the letter r to z. It also seems to
lose sight of the subspecies variant. It works well on Centaurea apiculata
Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál though.
That looks like it will be a really useful service.
-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of David Remsen
(GBIF)
Sent: 19 November 2010 11:51
To: John van Breda
Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; '"Markus Döring (GBIF)"'; 'Jim Croft'
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC
scientificName: good or bad?
The URI I circulated a moment ago comes AFTER you run a list of names
and doesn't seem friendly.
I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not
repeating
what has already been said, but botanical names can also have
authorship at
both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g.
Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál
And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants,
so 2
infraspecific levels, e.g.
Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis
Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be
able to
present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct
place.
E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not
normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can
include this
formatting information in dwc:scientificName?
Regards
John
-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus
Döring
(GBIF)"
Sent: 19 November 2010 09:24
To: Roderic Page
Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; Jim Croft
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC
scientificName: good or bad?
What Darwin Core offers right now are 2 ways of expressing the name:
A) the complete string as dwc:scientificName
B) the atomised parts:
genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet,
verbatimTaxonRank (+taxonRank), scientificNameAuthorship
Those 2 options are there to satisfy the different needs we have
seen in
this thread - the consumers call for a simple input and the need to
express
complex names in their verbatim form.
Is there really anything we are missing?
When it comes to how its being used in the wild right now I agree
with Dima
that there is a lot of variety out there.
It would be very, very useful if everyone would always publish both
options
in a consistent way.
Right now the fulI name can be found in once of these combinations:
- scientificName
- scientificName & scientificNameAuthorship
- scientificName, taxonRank & scientificNameAuthorship
- scientificName, verbatimTaxonRank & scientificNameAuthorship
- genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet, taxonRank,
scientificNameAuthorship
- genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet,
verbatimTaxonRank, scientificNameAuthorship
To make matters worse the way the authorship is expressed is also
impressively rich of variants.
In particular the use of brackets is not always consistent. You find
things
like:
# regular botanical names with ex authors
Mycosphaerella eryngii (Fr. ex Duby) Johanson ex Oudem. 1897
# original name authors not in brackets, but year is
Lithobius chibenus Ishii & Tamura (1994)
# original name in brackets but year not
Zophosis persis (Chatanay), 1914
# names with imprint years cited
Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ["1969"]
Anomalopus truncatus (Peters, 1876 ["1877"])
Deyeuxia coarctata Kunth, 1815 [1816]
Proasellus arnautovici (Remy 1932 1941)
On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:50, Roderic Page wrote:
I'm with Jm. For the love of God let's keep things clean and simple.
Have a field for the name without any extraneous junk (and by that I
include authorship), and have a separate field for the name plus all
the extra stuff. Having fields that atomise the name is also useful,
but not at the expense of a field with just the name.
Please, please think of data consumers like me who have to parse this
stuff. There is no excuse in this day and age for publishing data
that
users have to parse before they can do anything sensible with it.
Regards
Rod
On 19 Nov 2010, at 07:06, Jim Croft wrote:
Including the authors, dates and any thing else (with the
exception of
the infraspecific rank and teh hybrid symbol and in botany) as
part of
a thing called "the name" is an unholy abomination, a lexical
atrocity, an affront to logic and an insult the natural order of the
cosmos and any deity conceived by humankind.
In botany at least, the "name" (which I take to be the basic
communication handle for a taxon) is conventionally the genus plus
the
species epithet (plus the infraspecies rank and the infraspecies
name,
if present). All else is protologue and other metadata (e. s.l.
s.s,
taxonomic qualifiers) some of which may be essential for name
resolution, but metadata nevertheless. In much communication, the
name can and does travel in the absense of its metadata; that is not
to say it is a good or a bad thing, only that it happens. I am not
saying thi binominal approach is a good thing, in many respects
Linnaeus and the genus have a lot to answer for; but it what we have
been given to work with.
in zoology... well, who can say what evil lurks within... but if
what
you say below is right, at least they got it right with the
authorship... ;)
I think it is a really bad move to attempt to redefine "name" so
as to
include the name metadata to achieve some degree of name resolution
(basically the list of attributes does not end until you have
almost a
complete bibliographic citation - is author abbreviation enough? no,
add the full author surname? no, add the author initials? no, add
the
first name? no, add the transferring author? no, add the year of the
publication? no, add the journal? no, add the article title? no, add
the type specimen? no, add the... )
That is not to say these strings of the name and selected metadata
are
not useful, perhaps even essential, in certain contexts; only that
we
should not pretend or declare they are the "name". They are
something
else and we should find another "name" for them. "Scientific
name" is
not good enough as a normal person would interpret this as the latin
name
Fortunately I think nearly every modern application keeps all the
bits
of the name and publication metadata separate in some form, so it is
just a matter of geekery to glue them together in whatever
combination
we might require...
jim
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, <Tony.Rees@csiro.au> wrote:
Well, that sounds fine to me, however you may note that the ICZN
Code at least expressly states that authorship is *not* part of the
scientific name:
"Article 51. Citation of names of authors.
51.1. Optional use of names of authors. The name of the author does
not form part of the name of a taxon and its citation is optional,
although customary and often advisable."
I vaguely remember this has been discussed before - would anyone
care to comment further?
Cheers - Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Döring [mailto:m.doering@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 9:49 AM
To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); David Remsen
Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in
DwC
scientificName: good or bad?
Sorry if I wasnt clear, but definitely b)
Not all names can be easily reassembled with just the atoms.
Autonyms need
a bit of caution, hybrid formulas surely wont fit into the atoms
and
things like Inula L. (s.str.) or Valeriana officinalis s. str.
wont be
possible either. dwc:scientificName should be the most complete
representation of the full name. The (redundant) atomised parts
are a
recommended nice to have to avoid any name parsing.
As a consumer this leads to trouble as there is no guarantee that
all
terms exist. But the same problem exists with all of the ID terms
and
their verbatim counterpart. Only additional best practice
guidelines can
make sure we have the most important terms such as taxonRank or
taxonomicStatus available.
Markus
On Nov 18, 2010, at 23:26, Tony.Rees@csiro.au wrote:
> Just re-sending the message below because it bounced the first
> time.
>
>
> Markus/all,
>
> I guess my point is that (as I understand it) scientificName is a
required field in DwC, so the question is what it should be
populated
with. If it is (e.g.) genus + species epithet + authority, then is
it
beneficial to supply these fields individually / atomised as well,
maybe
with other qualifiers as needed?
>
> Just looking for an example "best practice" here - or maybe it
> exists
somewhere and you can just point to it.
> in other words:
>
> (a)
> <scientificName>Homo sapiens</scientificName>
> <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a>
>
> or (b):
> <scientificName>Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758</scientificName>
> <genus>Homo</genus>
> <specificEpithet>sapiens</specificEpithet>
> <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a>
>
> if you get my drift...
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees
> Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
> CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
> GPO Box 1538,
> Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
> Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
> Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
> e-mail: Tony.Rees@csiro.au
> Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
> Biodiversity informatics research activities:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
> Personal info:
http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?
id=1566
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
--
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the
point
of doubtful sanity.'
- Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)
Please send URIs, not attachments:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
---------------------------------------------------------
Roderic Page
Professor of Taxonomy
Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
AIM: rodpage1962@aim.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
dipteryx＠freeler.nl
Dmitry Mozzherin
John van Breda