[tdwg-content] DwC taxonomic terms
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Sep 10 23:11:57 CEST 2009
Thanks Markus -- this is very helpful. I'll need to wrap my head around
what is meant. However, it would be useful if you or someone could show me
how I would populate a DwC record for the sample I gave:
Specimen BPBM 13492.
Last identified as "Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933".
We (provider) treat this species is as a synonym of "Centropyge fisheri
The original description "fisheri" by Snyder (1904) placed it in the genus
I'll take a look at the example, and see if I can understand from that.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Markus Döring (GBIF)" [mailto:mdoering at gbif.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:03 AM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] DwC taxonomic terms
> as usual no time to write a long mail, but I wanted to
> quickly respond to your 3 intended uses below.
> The idea is that everyone of them has a dwc:scientificName
> term and potentially also the other terms you listed at the
> end like rank.
> originalTaxonNameID and acceptedTaxonID are still properties
> of the described dwc:scientificName and act like foreign keys
> linking one name/taxon to another. So if you have some sort
> of synonym (indicated by dwc:taxonomicStatus) the
> dwc:acceptedTaxonID will point to what is considered the
> accepted taxon. While originalTaxonNameID will point to the
> original name record. The verbatim non ID versions of these
> two terms do essentially the same, but are based on name
> string matching.
> They are not meant to replace the use of dwc:scientificName
> in a record.
> Maybe its best to look at the examples Dave put together:
> (the tax/nom status columns are subject to change)
> On Sep 10, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Richard Pyle wrote:
> > Dear All,
> > After a series of off-list conversations with Peter DeVries, Dave
> > Remsen, and others; and thanks to John W. for pointing me to the
> > active list of terms, I would like to offer some additional
> > on the "Core Taxon"
> > terms; but before I do, I want to make sure I understand how the
> > existing terms are intended to be used.
> >> From the perspective of an Occurrence (specimen/observation/etc.)
> >> record
> > represented through DwC, it seems to me that there are
> three sets of
> > name/taxon terms:
> > 1. "As Identified"
> > [Information about how the record is currently identified.]
> > - scientificName
> > - scientificNameID
> > - scientificNameAuthorship
> > - taxonAccordingTo
> > - taxonAccordingToID
> > 2. "As originally established"
> > [Information about the original name as established under the Code]
> > - originalTaxonName
> > - originalTaxonNameID
> > - namePublishedIn
> > - namePublishedInID
> > 3. "Opinion of Data Provider"
> > [Information about how the data provider interprets the
> correct name.]
> > - acceptedTaxon
> > - acceptedTaxonID
> > I'm not entirely certain which "set" of names the following terms
> > would apply to:
> > - rank
> > - verbatimRank
> > - higherTaxonName
> > - higherTaxonNameID
> > - higherClassification
> > - kingdom
> > - phylum
> > - class
> > - order
> > - family
> > - genus
> > - subgenus
> > - specificEpithet
> > - infraspecificEpithet
> > According to the current draft spreadsheet
> > =html
> > )
> > , it seems that the first two apply specifically to the
> > "scientificName", and therefore belong in the first set (i.e., rank
> > according to how it was identified; not necessarily how the Data
> > Provider now treats it, or what the original rank was). I
> assume the
> > rest all apply to "Opinion of Data Provider"; but this is not
> > explicitly stated.
> > For example, consider the specimen BPBM 13492. It was most recently
> > identified as "Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933". Our
> > current treatment of this species is as a junior synonym of
> > "Centropyge fisheri (Snyder 1904)". The original description
> > "fisheri" by Snyder (1904) placed it in the genus "Holacanthus".
> > I'm assuming that I would present this record via DwC using
> the above
> > terms as follows:
> > 1. As Identified:
> > scientificName: Centropyge flavicauda
> > scientificNameID:
> > .asp?s
> > pid=53548
> > scientificNameAuthorship: Fraser-Brunner 1933
> > taxonAccordingTo: Allen, G.R. 1980. Butterfly and
> angelfishes of the
> > world.
> > Volume II. Mergus Publishers. Pp. 149-352.
> > taxonAccordingToID:
> > ?id=22
> > 764
> > 2. As originally established:
> > - originalTaxonName: Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933
> > - originalTaxonNameID:
> > .asp?s
> > pid=53548
> > - namePublishedIn: Fraser-Brunner, A. 1933. A revision of the
> > chaetodont fishes of the subfamily Pomacanthinae.
> Proceedings of the
> > General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological
> Society of
> > London 1933 (pt 3, no.
> > 30): 543-599, Pl. 1.
> > - namePublishedInID:
> > ?id=67
> > 1
> > 3. Opinion of Data Provider:
> > acceptedTaxon: Centropyge fisheri
> > acceptedTaxonID:
> > .asp?s
> > pid=53548
> > If my assumptions are correct, then "specificEpithet" would be
> > "fisheri", not "flavicauda" -- correct?
> > Once I get a sense from this list whether I am interpreting
> the terms
> > correctly (or not), I'll offer some specific comments on the taxon
> > terms.
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-content mailing list
> > tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
More information about the tdwg-content