[tdwg-content] [ExternalEmail] Re: [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwCscientificName: good or bad?

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

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 at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2010 9:54 AM
> To: m.doering at mac.com; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Cc: Chuck.Miller at mobot.org; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org;
> dmozzherin at 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:
> 
> 1. 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 at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content