| Author |
Messages |
|
Joanna McCaffrey
Posts:40
 |
| 28-12-2007 10:59 AM |
 Alert
|
Hello all interested parties, Enclosed please find our Natural History SIG final proposal, based on comments taken at the recent EMu Users Group meeting at AMNH (Oct, 2007). We are asking for a 30 day review period, until 31 Jan 2008. Anyone interested in commenting should contact Robert Lucking at rlucking@fmnh.org directly, or else participate in the forum here.
Best regards, Joanna at FMNH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert says:
I have not received much further comments on fossils, so what I did, besides
accommodating as far as possible the discussion points from the AMNH
meeting, is adding a further tab dealing with fossil-specific issues. I
think this handles most of the problems, but if KE is going to implement
the new module as standard, at one point more feedback might be needed (same
with hybrids).
I also added a document explaining the three most important aspects of the
new module: synonymy clusters, hierarchical parenting, and typification. All
other things should be either self-explaining or sufficiently explained by
the comments in the presentation, which I updated.
|
Attachment: taxonomy_final.doc
Attachment: taxonomy_final.pdf
|
|
|
|
Penny Berents
Posts:2
|
| 11-01-2008 10:01 AM |
Alert
|
I am very interested in the NH Taxonomy proposal. I wish I was at the meeting at AMNH as the discussion must have been very interesting. At the Australian Museum our EMu Steering Committee has been grappling with some issues that may be resolved by the proposed module. I have a few questions:
We have had much discussion about how to handle manuscript names. Am I correct in assuming that in the proposed module this would be indicated on the Taxonomy tab, Group Box 'Controls' , Published = No, Used = Yes.
I am not clear what is meant by Used = yes or no. Can you give some examples of when a name is used in the collections and not in Taxonomy or vice versa? Do you mark 'yes' to inidicate used in the Taxonomy module or 'yes' to indicate use iin the collections?
Typification tab: The explanatory notes box indicates that Type Specimens are greyed out for names whose types are not specimens. Does this mean the specimens are not held in the collection? Is that what is intended in the Group Box 'Type Specimen (Not in Catalog) ? Are these type specimens held by another museum?
Best wishes, Penny at the Australian Museum
|
|
|
|
|
David Dickey
Posts:1
|
| 11-01-2008 12:58 PM |
Alert
|
1) Unpublished Names: Published = No; This is my understanding
2) Used Yes/No
I've just begun implementing a new classification for amphibians, so I've been making a good bit of use the analogous field to Used in Collection that AMNH has on its taxonomy module. In the proposal, its a drop down, so presumably can be filled with more values than Yes/No (we currently have yes/no/unknown radio buttons, which I find a bit limiting), and I can think of a few more values I would like to use there.
We have our collection arranged taxonomically, which is still pretty common for herpetology collections. If you don't use the taxonomy for arranging your collection as well, you may need fewer values.
Here is how I think I would use it, as I think it will simplify collection management (you would only have to look at one field to see how the taxon is used in the collection):
Used in collection: Yes
Specimens are in the catalog's current id field and shelved under this name.
Used in collection: Pending (for current taxon, not yet used for shelving)
Used in collection: Shelving (for old synonym used for shelving only)
Specimens are in the database under the currently accepted name, but (for now---until we have time & staff to relabel and move them, or until the curators are certain the new names are going to stick) shelved under an old synonym; i.e., the catalog has been updated, but the specimens have not been rearranged. In the catalog we have a field for ``shelved as'' on the taxonomy tab, that links to taxonomy, and this automatically writes the string ``see '' at the end of the summary data when the field is linked.
Used in collection: Unused (for a currently accepted name in the literature)
Used in collection: Yes (for the old synonym we are going to keep using)
Essentially like the above case, but your curators are planning to ignore that new revision that was just published, for whatever reason. But if you want to make your taxonomy module represent the literature, as well as use it for collection management (say your curator is planning to publish his own checklist, and wants to use the taxonomy module data to base it on, and wants a complete synonymy in the taxonomy module), you'll need the new taxa in the module, even if you will never apply them to your specimens.
Taxon used in collection: No
Taxon is purely an old synonym, used neither for any specimen's current id, nor as the name for shelving.
3) Typification tab. Some folks want to be able to reference types not in their own collection (so, not in their catalog). This would be useful if you were making a checklist from data stored in your taxonomy module.
David Dickey, Herpetology, AMNH |
|
|
|
|
Peter Lillywhite
Posts:5
|
| 11-01-2008 3:22 PM |
Alert
|
Manuscript names are an ongoing problem, more so now that we are exporting our data to the world via online collection access. At the Entomology and Arachnology department at Museum Victoria we continually need to register type material before it is published (thus providing Authors with publishable registration numbers). This would be true of many Invertebrate Zoology collections. To avoid the pitfalls of these unpublished names being lifted from the web and suddenly appearing in the published literature before the actual taxonomic publication is out, we have been using the following work around.
In the Taxonomy module we leave the taxon field(s) corresponding to the new name blank. We then use the "Other Rank" and "Other Value" fields thus; Other Rank: Gen. nov. Other Value: The new genus;
Other Rank: sp. nov. Other Value: the new species
We have set up the summary data to show these fields so that we can see them in "Catalogue". When we export the data we export only from the "Darwin Core fields". These don't include the "Other Rank" and "Other Value fields".
Also, if like me you like to fill in as much of the module as you can when entering a manuscript name you might wish to make note of the following when filling in the Author tab. EMu has a couple of default presets on this tab. One of these is MS Author in the "Role field". When this is entered the Author name is displayed as "Smith (Ms.)". This is reflected even in the Darwin Core "Scientific Name field". A simple script written by our Web Team then ignores any Author name in the DC field that terminates in (Ms.) when the data is exported to the internet.
As to the Natural History SIG proposal. I would like to see a radio button that simplifies all of this called MS name. It would be next to genus, species and sub-species. When it is checked the data would not appear in the corresponding DC fields.
|
|
|
|
|
Margaret Thayer
Posts:6
|
| 12-01-2008 3:25 AM |
Alert
|
plwhite closed with:
As to the Natural History SIG proposal. I would like to see a radio button that simplifies all of this called MS name. It would be next to genus, species and sub-species. When it is checked the data would not appear in the corresponding DC fields.
Doesn't/Shouldn't the script (or whatever the mechanism is) that extracts the DC data use the Publish to Internet Yes/No buttons for the record? Setting that to No for ms names would then keep such names from being made public either via one's local EMuweb site or via DC data extraction. |
|
|
|
|
Joanna McCaffrey
Posts:40
|
| 12-01-2008 4:57 AM |
Alert
|
Penny - I am responding for Robert - Joanna
---------------------------------------------------------------
> > We have had much discussion about how to handle manuscript names. > > Am I correct in assuming that in the proposed module this would be > > indicated on the Taxonomy tab, Group Box 'Controls' , Published = > > No, Used = Yes.
Manuscript names would be dealt with on the nomenclatural tabs (Botany:
Validity; Zoology: Availability). If a name only appeared in a MS or as herbarium label name but was not validly published, it would be invalid according to the code, and all this can be specified on those tabs. However, if a name is in print and will appear soon as validly published, no such designation is required.
> > I am not clear what is meant by Used = yes or no. Can you give
> > some examples of when a name is used in the collections and not
> > in Taxonomy or vice versa? Do you mark 'yes' to inidicate
> > used in the Taxonomy module or 'yes' to indicate use in the
> > collections?
Used = yes or no on the taxonomy tab means whether a name in the taxonomy module is actually used in the collections. For most users this field would be superfluous, since there are automatic means to check whether a name is used in the collections or not (View attached for example). The idea is that the taxonomy module is insofar independent of the catalog as names can be entered that are not present in the collections. This field has nothing to do with whether names are invalid or MS names and should not be confused with that.
> > Typification tab: The explanatory notes box indicates that Type
> > Specimens are greyed out for names whose types are not specimens. > > Does this mean the specimens are not held in the collection? Is
> > that what is intended in the Group Box 'Type Specimen (Not in
> > Catalog) ? Are these type specimens held by another museum?
No. For names above species rank, the types are also names. For example, the type of the genus Porina is the species Porina nucula, and the type of the family Porinaceae is the genus Porina. For such names, typification would link to another name record, but no specimen per se needs to be cited. Hence specimen fields are greyed out if the name record is above species rank.
However, for species names and below, the type is a specimen. In that case, there are two possibilities: (1) the type specimen data are in the catalog, and then a simple link is sufficient, or (2) the type specimen data are not in the catalog, and then they have to be entered on the typification tab.
Hope that helps
Regards
Robert
-- Robert Luecking Department of Botany The Field Museum of Natural History 1400 South Lake Shore Drive Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496 USA Phone: ++1-312-665-7154 (work) Fax: ++1-312-665-7158 (work) |
|
|
|
|
Peter Lillywhite
Posts:5
|
| 14-01-2008 9:27 AM |
Alert
|
Margret wrote:
Doesn't/Shouldn't the script (or whatever the mechanism is) that extracts the DC data use the Publish to Internet Yes/No buttons for the record? Setting that to No for ms names would then keep such names from being made public either via one's local EMuweb site or via DC data extraction.
Thanks Margret, unfortunately we still want these records published to the web we just don't want any manuscript names out there until the authosr have had a chance to publish them. We also have an abundance of good, valid data that have been acurately identified to voucher numbers that we publish to the web (again, without the voucher nomenclature).
Peter |
|
|
|
|
Penny Berents
Posts:2
|
| 22-01-2008 5:03 PM |
Alert
|
The continuing discussion about manuscript names is helpful. I like the procedure described by Peter Lilywhite from Museum Victoria (posted 11 Jan 2008, 3.22pm).
The problem I have with the procedure described by Joanne and Robert is that most ms names are written on labels with the intention of imminent publication. For all kinds of reasons this does not always eventuate and we are left with unpublished ms names. All ms names should be treated the same way so that. Those ms types that were looked at yesterday and labelled as types with the intent to publish may one day be the old label in the collection that was never validly published. Peter's system with a radio button for ms names allows easy up date when the name is published and also allows a system that prevents release to the web.
Regards
Penny
Dr Penny Berents, Head of Natural Science Collections, Australian Museum, 6 College St. Sydney, Australia. 61 2 9320 6134 |
|
|
|
|
Thomas Trombone
Posts:33
|
| 26-01-2008 10:53 AM |
Alert
|
I have a question regarding the steps for establishing synonymy clusters laid out in "taxonomy_final.doc". Suppose you start with the following five names:
BASIONYMS:
Pithys leucophrys
Pithys erythrophrys
COMBINATIONS:
Myrmoborus leucophrys
Myrmoborus leucophrys leucophrys
Myrmoborus leucophrys erythrophrys
The last three names (one species and two subspecies) are all valid. Step 3 (linking all combinations to corresponding original names) produces:
COMBINATION -> ORIGINAL NAME
Myrmoborus leucophrys -> Pithys leucophrys
Myrmoborus leucophrys leucophrys -> Pithys leucophrys
Myrmoborus leucophrys erythrophrys -> Pithys erythrophrys
which creates two objective synonym clusters:
1.
Pithys leucophrys
Myrmoborus leucophrys
Myrmoborus leucophrys leucophrys
and
2.
Pithys erythrophrys
Myrmoborus leucophrys erythrophrys
Per Step 5, all three combinations are recognized as current names by setting "Is current?" to "Yes".
I am not sure how to apply step 6 ("Basionyms of non-current names... are linked to basionym of current name...") It would seem that neither original name here is an "original name of a non-current name," in which case no link would be established between the subjective synonym clusters. Is this correct? If not, how should the original names be linked?
Thanks,
Tom
|
|
Thomas J. Trombone
American Museum of Natural History
|
|
|
Robert Lucking
Posts:3
|
| 29-01-2008 10:11 AM |
Alert
|
After following the discussion on how to handle manuscript names, maybe we can summarize and agree as follows:
- the idea of a more "versatile" drop-down menu for names used or not used in collections is good and we will implement that in the proposal
- manuscript names can be separated into several categories:
1) Name appears on "historic" label but has not been validly described AND name has appeared in literature: to be dealt with on nomenclature tab as invalid or unavailable name (unless validly described); since the name already appeared in literature, no harm is made by publishing data on the web
2) Name appears on "historic" label but has not been validly described BUT name has NOT appeared in literature: distribution of such names should be avoided unless necessary; however, such names are public domain as they appear on official labels accessable to any researcher. Since publishing the data without ID does not make sense, there are three options:
a) for collections with ID restricted to such names and where name should not be published on web, set record to publish on internet = no
b) for collections that in addition to such names also have a valid name in the ID history, publish valid name IDs only on internet
c) for collections with ID restricted to such names and where no other ID is available and collections should be published, use quotation marks for invalid manuscript names, such as Malcolmiella "leucopiperis"
3) Names appear on recent labels and are manuscript names intended to be published by an active researcher; in such a case, I see only two options:
a) Publication of names on the web before their valid publication in print to be avoided; in that case, simply set the catalog records to publish on internet = no until name is published; publication of these records without the name doesn't seem to make sense
b) Publication of names on the web in anticipation of their valid publication in print (i.e. publication is accepted); no further special treatment is required since the publication in print can already be cited with the name record as "in press"
As far as I can see, the proposed taxonomy module can handle all these cases without significant modification, i.e. there is room for practically all the special cases mentioned here in the discussion. We will check if some minor modifications are required to accommodate some of the discussion points.
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Lucking
Posts:3
|
| 29-01-2008 10:29 AM |
Alert
|
Tom, I think one aspect of your example has to be clarified. It is a mix of synonymy clusters and taxonomic hierarchy. As soon as you introduce subspecies into the system while maintaining the species-level name, all subspecies become children of the species name. In your example
Myrmoborus leucophrys
is the parent of both
Myrmoborus leucophrys leucophrys
and
Myrmoborus leucophrys erythrophrys
and not a homotypic synonym of
Myrmoborus leucophrys erythrophrys
For example, if you describe a species AA and then a subspecies AAB, the type specimen of the original species AA automatically becomes the type of the autonymous nominal subspecies AAA. Species AA then becomes the parent of both subspecies AAA and AAB, but it cannot be considered a synonym of either of them, since the taxonomic content of each of the three names AA, AAA, and AAB is different.
Same the other way around: if you describe two original species AA and AB and later merge AB into AA as subspecies, you get AAA and AAB as subspecies of parent AA, and the type designation moves from AA to AAA. Also here, the three names have taxonomically different contents and cannot be considered synonyms.
Thus, in your case, you get the following:
Homotypic cluster 1 =
Myrmoborus leucophrys leucophrys
Original name = Pithys leucophrys
and homotypic cluster 2 =
Myrmoborus leucophrys erythrophrys
Original name = Pithys erythrophrys
Myrmoborus leucophrys is not part of these synonymy clusters but the parent to
Myrmoborus leucophrys leucophrys
and
Myrmoborus leucophrys erythrophrys
The logic of this example is that once you work at the subspecific level, the VALID NAME of a taxon is the subspecies name and not the species name. As long as you accept the existence of subspecies, valid IDs must be made to the subspecies level, and species-level IDs are considered incomplete. The species-level name is also a valid name, but now refers to a higher level. For example, if you have a genus with two valid species, you can identify a collection to either genus level only or one of the two species. All three are valid and non-synonymous name entries in the taxonomy module, i.e. a genus cannot be a synonym of any of its species. Similary, a binomial species name cannot be a synonym of any of its trinomial subspecies, since by definition, it covers all subspecies, like a genus name coveres all of its species.
In your example, step 6 is not necessary since you don't have any subjective synonyms in your example. So you modify step 3 in taking the parent species name
Myrmoborus leucophrys
out of the synonym cluster (and instead link to the subspecies by parenting) and then are finished with step 5
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Trombone
Posts:33
|
| 30-01-2008 8:45 AM |
Alert
|
Thanks for the clarification, Robert! I have a few follow-up questions:
- In the example I gave, what would be the values of "Is original?" and "Original name:" for the record of parent species Myrmoborus leucophrys? Would these fields be left blank (as they presumably would be for any higher level names such as genera or families?)
- What if the name of a parent species *is* a basionym? See:
ORIGINAL NAMES:
Pachycephala mentalis
Pachycephala obiensis
COMBINATIONS:
Pachycephala mentalis mentalis
Pachycephala mentalis obiensis
Pachycephala mentalis is an original name and is also the (valid) name of the parent species of (valid) subspecies Pachycephala mentalis mentalis and Pachycephala mentalis obiensis. For subspecies Pachycephala mentalis mentalis, would we not want to set "Is original?" to "No" and link it to its own parent Pachycephala mentalis as its original name? Or would we maintain two separate records for the species-level name Pachycephala mentalis: one used as the original name, and the other as the parent species?
- Would "Is current?" and "Current name:" be used for higher level categories, for example to link genera as synonyms of one another?
Thanks,
Tom |
|
Thomas J. Trombone
American Museum of Natural History
|
|
|
Robert Lucking
Posts:3
|
| 31-01-2008 9:13 AM |
Alert
|
Tom, I am not sure whether zoology does this differently, but in botanican nomenclature there is no synonymous relationship between a species name and its subspecific autonym, such as
Pachycephala mentalis
Pachycephala mentalis mentalis
When establishing a subspecies, such as "Pachycephala mentalis obiensis"
the originally described species "Pachycephala mentalis" automatically changes to "Pachycephala mentalis mentalis" and takes over all protologue information, such as typification, Latin diagnosis etc. This means that, once a subspecies is established, the diagnosis and type of the original species from then on belong to the autonymous subspecies "Pachycephala mentalis mentalis" and no longer to the species name "Pachycephala mentalis"
This is because the species name is inclusive, i.e. "Pachycephala mentalis" includes both "Pachycephala mentalis mentalis" and "Pachycephala mentalis obiensis". If "Pachycephala mentalis" would continue to have a type specimen, it would by definition be the same as that of "Pachycephala mentalis mentalis", and then you would create the logically impossible paradoxon that species "Pachycephala mentalis" and subspecies "Pachycephala mentalis mentalis" are exactly the same, and since the species "Pachycephala mentalis" includes the other subspecies "Pachycephala mentalis obiensis", the autonymous nominal subspecies "Pachycephala mentalis mentalis" would also include that other subspecies. This is not possible.
Therefore, there is no synonymous relationship between a species name and any of its subspecies names, and all type material must be strictly assigned to any of the given subspecies names, including the nominal autonym. Thus, "Pachycephala mentalis mentalis" is neither a synonym or a combination of "Pachycephala mentalis", but a part of it, and the two are connected by a hierarchical parent-child relationship and not a synonym relationship.
What happens in the end is that the meaning and application of the name "Pachycephala mentalis" changes when a subspecies is described. Taxonomically, a new subspecies is not a part of the originally described species, but a separate taxon with a separate type. It does not matter whether the original circumscription of the species included what was later recognized as different subspecies, since the definition of a taxon is ultimately restricted to its type. If I describe a species AA based on a very wide concept that actually includes several species, the name AA will always apply to the species that includes the type, independent of the applied species concept. Therefore, if a subspecies AAB is newly established, the original species name AA cannot be inclusive of that subspecies and automatically changes to the nominal autonym AAA. It is as if, when you describe a new species AA, you implicitly describe it as the least inclusive taxon, i.e. as its own and only subspecies AAA.
Therefore, once a subspecies AAB is established, the meaning of the species name AA is different from its original meaning and now also includes all of its subspecies, whereas the original name AA did not.
So, to make a long story short: no synonymous relationships exist between a species name and any of its subspecies, not even the nominal autonym, which is always an original name and not a combination
Pachycephala mentalis = original name at species level, parent to its two subspecies:
Pachycephala mentalis mentalis = original name
Pachycephala mentalis obiensis = combination
Pachycephala obiensis = original name of above subspecies
|
|
|
|
|
Joanna McCaffrey
Posts:40
|
| 31-01-2008 9:14 AM |
Alert
|
******** Gentle Reminder ********
Hello colleagues - the deadline is upon us (31 January, 2008), and I am hoping that we are winding down examination and discussion of the proposal. If there are still issues, please start discussion them now.
As promised at the meeting, I'd like to take an official poll of everyone's response to the proposal. Please let me know your position by end of the day Friday, 1 Feb, 2008
I have heard so far from:
NMNH - SI - Hollowell
Its seems unlikely that NMNH is going to adopt a taxonomy redesign at this time. More than being a matter of my own time, its a matter of NMNH's capacity to invest resources in light of other informatics priorities set out by our administration and also considering that our varied departments' preferences for EMu Taxonomy's direction aren't going to be resolved soon. Some departments may have chosen to comment on the Taxonomy proposal independently as EMu Users, and I think some have communicated with Robert by email. Our Mineral Sciences department is also in touch with Dave Smith of NHM on mineral taxonomy. Personally I have no disagreement with the current proposal's approach to Hierarchies, Synonymy or Typification, but again NMNH is not at a museum-wide stage where its ready to leave its current design.
Peabody - Gall
Peabody is good with the proposal.
>>>> -> What about AMNH, NHM, NYBG, MV, others? |
|
|
|
|
Peter Lillywhite
Posts:5
|
| 04-02-2008 12:35 PM |
Alert
|
rlucking on 1/29/2008 10:11:17 AM
3) Names appear on recent labels and are manuscript names intended to be published by an active researcher; in such a case, I see only two options:
a) Publication of names on the web before their valid publication in print to be avoided; in that case, simply set the catalog records to publish on internet = no until name is published; publication of these records without the name doesn't seem to make sense
b) Publication of names on the web in anticipation of their valid publication in print (i.e. publication is accepted); no further special treatment is required since the publication in print can already be cited with the name record as "in press
Robert,
Thank you for your explanations on dealing with manuscript names. Can I just clarify the publishing of data where the name is awaiting publication. We use EMu to publish our distributional data as well as 'species lists'. As such, publishing material ID'ed only to genus level, even family level, does make sense and is indeed very usful to other researchers.
We also prefer to avoid publishing "in press" names until the publication actually appears. In press can mean different things to different authors. Finally I would be very wary about using invalid manuscript names by denoting them in "quotation marks". History has shown that eventually the "" disappear when the data is continually referenced by others.
Peter |
|
|
|
|
Joanna McCaffrey
Posts:40
|
| 13-02-2008 9:16 AM |
Alert
|
I have not heard any response from London NHM, or from Australia (MV in particular). I am inclined to go ahead.
Enclosed is our plan drawn up in New York last October.
The final official words, not already documented are NYBG:
Joanna: We are fine with the proposal. It isn’t clear to us whether or not there will be a cost to convert data to the new design, and if so, it may be that we cannot afford to make the change. As we move in a new direction, toward “publishing” electronic floras and monographs from our EMu database, it may be that we will have additional requirements for Taxonomy – mostly related to segregating one project view of a taxon from the view needed for another taxon. We probably need a few years of experience in order to know whether or not the Taxonomy redesign that the SIG came up with will serve these new projects, or if additional changes will be needed.
--------------------------------------------------
AMNH:
AMNH agrees that the proposal is an improvement over the current Taxonomy module and we would accept the redesign as the new standard module. Our biggest concern involves any costs (financial or personnel effort) that might be incurred by institutions seeking to adopt it, either for the redesign of the module itself or for migration of existing taxonomy data.
I will propose to KE that Larry and Robert meet with Andrew, hopefully at a location in North America, to hash out any final details related to implementation.
Best regards to the contributors, and thank you.
Joanna at FMNH |
Attachment: Taxonomy Module Redesign next steps.doc
|
|
|
|
Christopher Lyal
Posts:3
|
| 13-02-2008 7:34 PM |
Alert
|
I can't say on behalf of NHM what we will do, but my strong feeling is that we are unlikley to change our taxonomy module significantly at this stage. As you will know from previous messages to this forum, and from a presentation at the North American UG meeting a couple of years ago, we have devoted quite a lot of time and money to designing and building a new module with KE, with different tabs reflecting the views of Botany, Zoology and Paleontology (as with the proposal here). This is now rolled out to users and seems to be popular. It includes amongst other things the functionality of seeing all homonyms, synonyms and combinations (for Zoology; heterotypic cf homotypic synonyms for Botany) on records of all of the taxa involved. It displays the reasons under the relevant Code for unavailablity/ invalidity, and has separate and detailed tabs for type taxon and type specimen. As with any module, the users are not compelled to enter data they do not wish to, so although parts of the module are sufficiently complex for taxonomic and nomenclatural researchers to enter the data they need, it can also serve the requirements of those who simply need to manage collections and do not need to add so much information. Our challenges now include finding a method of automaticcally copying data between homotypic synonyms when this is needed, and dealing with coordinate taxon names in Zoology (as discussed by Robert Lucking earlier) without the rather clumsy method of having to create parallel records with all details the same.
Chris Lyal
Department of Entomology,
NHM |
|
|
|
|
Christopher Lyal
Posts:3
|
| 13-02-2008 7:35 PM |
Alert
|
I can't say on behalf of NHM what we will do, but my strong feeling is that we are unlikley to change our taxonomy module significantly at this stage. As you will know from previous messages to this forum, and from a presentation at the North American UG meeting a couple of years ago, we have devoted quite a lot of time and money to designing and building a new module with KE, with different tabs reflecting the views of Botany, Zoology and Paleontology (as with the proposal here). This is now rolled out to users and seems to be popular. It includes amongst other things the functionality of seeing all homonyms, synonyms and combinations (for Zoology; heterotypic cf homotypic synonyms for Botany) on records of all of the taxa involved. It displays the reasons under the relevant Code for unavailablity/ invalidity, and has separate and detailed tabs for type taxon and type specimen. As with any module, the users are not compelled to enter data they do not wish to, so although parts of the module are sufficiently complex for taxonomic and nomenclatural researchers to enter the data they need, it can also serve the requirements of those who simply need to manage collections and do not need to add so much information. Our challenges now include finding a method of automaticcally copying data between homotypic synonyms when this is needed, and dealing with coordinate taxon names in Zoology (as discussed by Robert Lucking earlier) without the rather clumsy method of having to create parallel records with all details the same.
Chris Lyal
Department of Entomology,
NHM |
|
|
|
|
Dianne Bray
Posts:2
|
| 18-02-2008 3:38 PM |
Alert
|
Hi Joanna,
Sorry for being quiet on this - I was unable to respond last week. We're happy with the proposed new module and thank all involved for the work that's gone into its redevelopment. We look forward to the redesign becoming the standard taxonomy module.
Best wishes and thanks to all who contributed to the redevelopment.
Di Bray at MV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|