Fern concept example

[mdoering]

Here is a nice example of a modern fern classification using @nfranz concept maps. Maybe thats useful to craft real world examples. @myrmoteras maybe concept maps is something that Plazi could mark up in the future? Would definitely ease our way into a better world.

Each family is accompanied by a concept map (see Franz & al., 2008), mapping our treatment onto previous classifications. For example, the following entry under Rhachidosoraceae: “=Athyriaceae: Rhachidosoroideae sensu Wang & al. (2004); <Woodsiaceae sensu Smith & al. (2006)” indicates that our treatment of that family is equivalent in composition to Wang & al.’s concept of subfamily Rhachi- dosoroideae of Athyriaceae, and is a subset of Smith & al.’s concept of Woodsiaceae.

CYSTOPTERIDACEAE (Payer) Shmakov, Turczaninowia 4: 60 (2001) <Polypodiaceae: Asplenioideae+Polypodiaceae: Dryopteridoi- deae sensu Christensen (1938); <Dennstaedtiaceae: Dryopteridoi- deae+Athyrioideae sensu Holttum (1947); <Dryopteridaceae: Dryopter- idoideae + Athyrioideae sensu Nayar (1970); <Athyriaceae sensu Pichi Sermolli (1977); <Athyriaceae sensu Ching (1978a); <Dryopterida- ceae: Athyrioideae sensu Lovis (1978); <Dryopteridaceae: Physema- tieae sensu Tryon & Tryon (1982); <Dryopteridaceae: Athyrioideae: Physematieae sensu Kramer & al. (1990b); <Cystopteridaceae sensu Shmakov (2001); <Athyriaceae: Cystopterioideae sensu Wang & al. (2004); <Woodsiaceae sensu Smith & al. (2006); =Cystopteridaceae sensu Christenhusz & al. (2011).

[myrmoteras]

let me get the published article so we can process it, and if I find the time and access, also the articles that are cited and part of the mapping. But already this points out, how irrealistic the current system is: I need to get the article. The article is closed access, and the one linked is not the finally published article that should be used because it is the digital copy of the DOI. Then, I need to find the other articles, if I have access to read and find out - instead of having a JSON version or similar that allows automatic mapping....

We also pushed the notion, that each treatment should be accompanied by materials citations, best in DWC so this can be done by machine. There is not way to create these maps at scale based on legacy publications. Ask yourself, how much time does it take to create one such mapping, how much of the mapping is based on inference.

the only thing I can say, stop publishing this way, make it as a criteria that only a format is good enough that allows this sort of mapping by machine.

[nfranz]

Reading along. At ASU we presently are funded to advance research into several of these issues. So, if this particular example is of greater interest, we can likely allocate that effort.

[myrmoteras]

let's then get all the publications and create the treatments, link them if possible so you @nfranz can use the treatment as bases for looking into the bases of the mapping in the publications above? Can you get all the mentioned publications? This would allow to understand the effort it takes to produce the treatments

[nielsklazenga]

@mdoering :+1: for adding the label

Nice example. Nice use of RCC-5 type Taxon Relationships. This discussion also illustrates the need and urgency of having a specification for exchanging references within our domain.

[nfranz]

This is just a translation exercise, quite likely. Here's that 2012 paper's taxonomy vs. the Smith et al. (2006) taxonomy. (Using Euler/X input syntax; the improvement of which is of course an objective for this group.)

Eupolypods_Version01.txt

[camwebb]

I made an RDF version of the taxonomic concept relationships that @nfranz illustrated above, using the TDWG ontology, here. Simplified spaghetti-gram below.