Skip to main content

Holotype, Quirotype, Pseudogenotype, Pliogenotype - TaxonWorks will support them all!

The Species File Group has always sought to provide robust nomenclatural "auditing" in our software. We include many tests to ensure that nomenclatural metadata conforms to the applicable governing rules. In an effort to further formalize aspects of these tests we recently released the NOMEN ontology, a resource that we hope evolves into a community-based standard. Today, we're very happy to announce a second, similar initiative focused on supporting the types of types used in the Linnean systems of nomenclature.

Taxonomists are very familiar with the concept of types. The usage of some types of types are governed according to a code of nomenclature, for example there are special rules regarding holotypes (the name bearing specimen for a species name) in the ICZN. The usage of other types of types are not governed, they are merely useful to taxonomists who are managing a lot of different data. For example an author may reference an allotype, the opposite sex specimen of a primary type, but this reference has no "legal" or "binding" consequences according to the zoological code. As it turns out, within botany and zoology, the number of different types of types found in the literature is surprisingly large. In 1933 these were cataloged by Donald Frizzell who enumerated a whopping 233 meta-type references.

Our announcement today means that TaxonWorks has committed to supporting the use of all 233 different meta-types identified by Frizzel. Sure, this is a daunting task whose utility may be marginal, but if you want to record that your phototype is of a nepionotype, you should be able to! If you are tracking onomatypes for distribution mapping purposes, TaxonWorks has you covered. Things can get complicated, Frizzel himself notes:
... a specimen which any working systematist would regard as a paratype might very well be at the same time an adelfotype, an alloparatype, an androtype, lipotype, a mimotype and a paraedoeotype.
Amazing! Frizzel's work is now over 80 years old, we can be assured that potentially hundreds of new types of types exist, floating around in the literature. We are committed to finding these renegade types, and plan to spend months deciphering what they mean and how they will be useful in the age of cybertaxonomy. The existence of so many different types of types reflects the complexities inherent in doing biology, among (many) others they reflect concepts of location, life stage, sex, season collected, age, or anatomy. In other words, to model these type concepts in a semantic way we're going to have to build and then use ontologies that formalize all of life as we know it! This is a minor problem that we expect to resolve in a month or two.

Stay tuned here for updates, for now you can check out our current progress.


Popular posts from this blog

Guest Post: Notes on mx: Lessons from Treehoppers

In response to our previous post this is a guest post from Lewis L. Deitz, Department of Entomology. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Thanks for the feedback Lew, you've set some lofty goals for us to reach!

I sincerely appreciate the creation of this blog for user input. I urge other users to set aside time to share their recommendations. A great deal is outstanding about mx, even though my focus is necessarily on items that I feel might be improved. My suggestions stem from work in developing the Treehoppers Website and Database. We bulk-loaded taxon data for higher categories and genera from spreadsheets. I fear that refining these data and back-filling data that did not quite fit mx formats will require a tremendous amount of time and effort. It is my hope that the lessons learned from my experience will prove helpful to future mx projects and the development of mx/TaxonWorks.

Database as Work in Progress: Need for Draft Data and Explanatory Data I have…

cc0 vs. the world

Today I had some discussion that stirred up my desire to say, in a loud voice: "But look here, if it is credit you want, then the best way to get it is if your data are cc0, it's even better than cc-by!" So I tweeted:
#informatics need a study. If a dataset/paper is CC0 does it increase the *citations* relative to *any* more restrictive CC (I suspect so).
— Matt Yoder (@mjyoder) July 30, 2014 TL;DR There are lots of hints, but apparently no direct studies that address this.

Two important bits of clarification based on my original thoughts. I was only interested in cc licensed data. I was not asking whether cc0 data is reused more than other cc- data, just whether cc0 data gets *cited* (yes, citations = bad metric, so use a generic "pointed to" perhaps) more than other cc- data, particularly cc-by.

The basic premise is that the best way to (ultimately) bring focus to your work is to make it completely free, and that this will bring more attention, in the lon…

Insect Frenzy

This is the third in a series of posts by our intern Jeff  Jaureguy.

Day 3 June 27, 2016

         I was spoiled this morning with an amazing Norwegian breakfast called  a smothered omelet lefse wrap at the Norske Nook.  Who would have known this beautiful gem would be in such a small town.  We packed the car and headed out of the town of Hayward towards our next field site in Washburn county on the Namekagon River at Lat: 46.02739, Long: -92.01258.  This was a very large river about 80 m wide and had a blackish brownish color.  I ended up using a dip net the whole time scouring the river for aquatic insects.  I found a lot of caddisfly pupae and casings on the bottom of the river along with some local fish, my first catch!   The next site we collected at was in Burnett county at the St. Croix River at Lat: 46.07568, Long: -92.7077.  This location was a very large sinuous river with a dark brown color to the water.I collected samples using a beating sheet and stick in the river.I found a…