in the appendix there are two sections that are of interest.
A has all the materials examined, including accession codes etc.
B has all the nomenclatural changes.
It would be good to process this and to use as an example, also for the discussion in BiCIKL, and with Joe at GBIF about linking phylogenies to occurrences.
Let us discuss how to deal with this
P.S. this is an interesting example, where Rod tried to make a point that a link to a treatment is meaningless.
Hi Donat,
I’ll leave it to John to decide whether the links you provide are the sort of thing he was after.
If we think of all these interconnected facts as nodes and edges in a “knowledge graph”, then we’re all working on the same thing, just focussing on different nodes, based on a combination of what we think matters and what our skills and resources are.
Obviously we may view the same things differently. If the goal is to provide article level citations then the often cryptic treatment-style citations in taxonomy are an obstacle (what article does "Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 59(2): 328” refer to?). If treatment citations are the goal, then a citation like:
Coughenour, J. M., Simmons, M. P., Lombardi, J. A., Yakobson, K., & Archer, R. H. (2011). Phylogeny of Celastraceae subfamily Hippocrateoideae inferred from morphological characters and nuclear and plastid loci. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 59(2), 320–330. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.02.017
is the wrong level of granularity. I think both are useful.
Whilst a taxonomic name and the Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 59(2): 328, for example for Pristimera dewildemaniana (N.Hallé) R.H.Archer refers to a treatment:
which includes another plethora of links that is essentially an essential part of the catalogue.
A treatment citation is not at all cryptic but rather clear. The problem is that the current citation style to refer to an article is cumbersome, but once we made the treatments citable, this will be open, save time for anybody else interested in Pristimera dewildemaniana (N.Hallé) R.H.Archer, Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 59(2): 328.
Essentially anybody cataloguing makes the effort to find the treatments, but then discards it.
flsimoes
commented
2 years ago
@flsimoes @mguidoti can you please look into this article that just got mentioned in taxacom. molecularPhylogeneticsEvolution.59.2.320-330.pdf
in the appendix there are two sections that are of interest. A has all the materials examined, including accession codes etc.
B has all the nomenclatural changes.
It would be good to process this and to use as an example, also for the discussion in BiCIKL, and with Joe at GBIF about linking phylogenies to occurrences.
Let us discuss how to deal with this
P.S. this is an interesting example, where Rod tried to make a point that a link to a treatment is meaningless.
and here my answer