[tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sun Jun 13 02:50:12 CEST 2010

> That said modeling relationships between taxonomic publications where 
> the authors actually read the original species description, reviewed 
> the type specimens, and thought about the actual species conscription is

This is the sort of things the Meta-Authorities would take into account when
selecting a "follow-this-treatment" Usage-Instance for the preferred
treatment of a name.

> Also consider that a large proportion of specimens are misidentified, 
> and it occurs to me that modeling things like species occurrences as 
> if they are Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771) sensu stricto is probably 
> not appropriate. At best they are something like (Felis concolor / 
> Puma concolor) with some significant level of error.

GNA can't helpw ith that directly -- but it can help indirectly.  Imagine a
service that takes ever specimen in a given collection's database, and runs
it against a mapping service as I described in the previous message.  I can
easily imagine a GIS-based algorithm that finds "outliers" -- that is
occurrence records that appear to be outside the distribution based on the
occurrence records from other sources.  A clver/robust such algorithm could
probably even discern whether the outlier likely represented a range
extension (e.g. poorly-known species, plausible extansion), vs. a
misidentification (e.g., well-known species and/or common

This would lead to a set of flagged records from the collection that might
be misidentified.


More information about the tdwg-content mailing list