[SEEK-Taxon] RE: LC/TCS - How many schemas?

[B.J.Tindall]

Dear All,
In an earlier e-mail Nico mentioned the Hawksworth's 1994 Bionomenclature
Glossary, as well as Codes. One additional difficulty is that behind the
same term may be hidden different concepts. This applies, in particular, to
the Bacteriological Code concept of "valid publication" which (unlike the
ICBN) incorporates an act of registration. Why is this important? Well back
in the 1960's somewhere between 30,000 to 40,000 names of bacteria were
collected together and the experts asked which ones were to be retained.
The result was about 1,800 species names (combinations) being retained,
with the rest being unambiguously thrown overboard. This even applied to
homotypic synonyms which had been applied earlier in the chain of changing
taxonomic opinion. 

The problem which now surfaces is that, after 25 years, those names which
we would certainly no longer use or those which we would prefer to forget
about are re-surfacing:
a) via the older literature being made available online
b) by databases which simply list all the names they can find

this sounds a little like Walter's "normal murky name as used by many
databases out there, where no further definition of concept etc. is given."
However, there is no need for this level of uncertainty. While bacteriology
already has lists of protected names and registered/indexed names, the
current flood of names is undermining that system, especially when there is
no clear and unambiguous reference to the relevance of that name to the
Bacteriological Code. This is certainly a work in hand in botany and
zoology, but we already have that information.

We discussed this problem at length at a meeting at GBIF in January. I had
the impression that I had been understood. I know that Paul would advocate
that one list all names, but this would only cause further confusion if
those names which "have no standing in bacterial nomenclature" are not
clearly identified as such (i.e. nomenclatural corpses). This is a
situation which is unique to virology and bacteriology.

This also links into Paul's e-mail - we can clearly identify those names
which may be without a type or where the protologue was so vague as to be
of no use, etc. This is why such names were abandoned. 

Brian

At 08:35 2.3.2005 -0000, Kennedy, Jessie wrote:
>Hi Walter
>
>Just for clarification...
>do you mean you want to identify something with a name as per LC rather
than the name of a concept as per TCS?
>I thought we had strong agreement in Christchurch that it was menaingless
to identify something to a name and it would be more appropriate to be
identified to a concept (name) - but this doens't mean you have to include
the definition of the concept - only enough to uniquely identify the
concept which of course the scientific name  doesn't do, as we all know.
>A name as per LC has no definition except at at a push the type specimen.
>
>thanks,
>
>Jessie
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Berendsohn, Walter G. [mailto:w.berendsohn at bgbm.org]
>>Sent: 02 March 2005 07:56
>>To: Kennedy, Jessie; G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE; nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp;
>>dhobern at gbif.org; franz at nceas.ucsb.edu; CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz;
>>ghw at anbg.gov.au; lblaine at atcc.org; p.kirk at CABI.ORG; bti at dsmz.de;
>>garrity at msu.edu; Kukla, Robert; C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk; yjong at science.uva.nl;
>>weitzman at si.edu; rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu; cwilson at usgs.gov;
>>sblum at CalAcademy.org; seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org;
>>S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org; sci.staff at gbif.org; ict.staff at gbif.org;
>>roger at hyam.net; jones at nceas.ucsb.edu; gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net;
>>gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net
>>Subject: LC/TCS - How many schemas? 
>>
>>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>I think that we have to achieve common data definitions on the data
>>element level and for a number of types as well. Different purposes may
>>need different schemas, as Jerry has indicated. However, 
>>different needs
>>as to, for example, integrity can also be covered by extensions to
>>common types, as Gregor has demonstrated for SDD and UBIF. 
>>
>>I still think that we have at least three levels of needed
>>standardisation: the full taxonomic concept "world" (excluding the
>>geographical and descriptive data used to circumscribe the taxon), the
>>full "nomenclator world" as defined by the codes, including
>>_nomenclatural_ relationships to other names and assertions as to
>>adherence to the rules of nomenclature, and the normal murky name as
>>used by many databases out there, where no further definition 
>>of concept
>>etc. is given. I would like to have this latter component somewhat
>>isolated, e.g. as a type, from the rest, because I would like 
>>to plug it
>>into ABCD (as the result of an identification). 
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Walter
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:08 AM
>>> To: Subcommittee for Data Access and Database Interoperability 
>>> Subject: RE: [SEEK-Taxon] RE: GBIF and TCS-LC for data exchange
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------------------
>>> This message was sent to: "Kennedy,  Jessie" 
>>> <J.Kennedy at napier.ac.uk>,  "G. Hagedorn" <G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE>, 
>>>  "Nozomi Ytow" <nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp>,  
>>> <dhobern at gbif.org>,  <franz at nceas.ucsb.edu>,  
>>> <CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz>,  <ghw at anbg.gov.au>,  
>>> <lblaine at atcc.org>,  <p.kirk at CABI.ORG>,  <bti at dsmz.de>,  
>>> <garrity at msu.edu>,  "Kukla,  Robert" <R.Kukla at napier.ac.uk>,  
>>> <C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk>,  <yjong at science.uva.nl>,  
>>> <weitzman at si.edu>,  <rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu>,  
>>> <cwilson at usgs.gov>,  <sblum at CalAcademy.org>,  
>>> <seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org>,  <S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org>,  
>>> <sci.staff at gbif.org>,  <ict.staff at gbif.org>,  
>>> <roger at hyam.net>,  "Matt Jones" <jones at nceas.ucsb.edu>, 
>>> "Subcommittee for Data Access and Database Interoperability " 
>>> <gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net>, "Subcommittee for Electonic 
>>> Catalogue of Names of Known Organisms" 
>>> <gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net> Remember that the messages 
>>> sent to the list(s) go to all recipients.
>>> -------------------
>>> 
>>> > In response to Donald's document - we've annotated the 
>>document (an 
>>> > email wiki ;-) ) - Please find attached our comments using 
>>> tracking in 
>>> > Word.
>>> 
>>> To continue the email wiki, I have attached the same document 
>>> with my own comments appended (in blue).  The sooner others 
>>> jump in on this, the more colors they'll have to choose from 
>>> using Word's "Track Changes" feature -- so better hurry!
>>> 
>>> :-)
>>> 
>>> Aloha,
>>> Rich
>>> 
>>
>
********************************************************************
* Dr.B.J.Tindall      E-MAIL bti at dsmz.de                           *
* Vice Chairman of the ICSP Judicial Commission                    *
* DSMZ-Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH *
* Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany                *
* Tel.: ++ 531 2616 0 (general)                                    *
* Tel.: ++ 531 2616 224 (direct)                                   *
* Fax:  ++ 531 2616 418                                            *
*                                                                  *
* Homepage: http://www.dsmz.de/index.html                          *
* E-MAIL: contact at dsmz.de (general enquiries)                      *
*         sales at dsmz.de (sales)                                    *
********************************************************************