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

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Tony,

> 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)

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