Date: Wed, 25 Nov 98 00:08 EST From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3710$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: Jan's CP Database (Adding comments on names)
Dear Jan and List,
> publications. But what Charles meant was not the technical
> (nomenclatural) aspect of validity but the taxonomic decision of
> acceptance.
>
> What Charles asked me to do is to comment *why* certain names are
> accepted in the cp database and why others are not. This was/is,
> however, not my intention with the database. Commenting each entry
> (or even updating these comments appropriately) would take more than
> a lifetime if it should be done in a sufficient quality. Peter Taylor
> worked for more than 50 years on a collection of comments on
> _Utricularia_ alone, commonly known as his monograph. Although this
> was the best and most comprehensive taxonomic text that was ever
> written on _Utricularia_, the genus still leaves enough open
> questions for at least another 50 years of research.
Well, it's not as though the person compiling the botanic
opinions would have to do all the work of writing up opinions
like Peter Taylor... We don't need new research to start this
sort of inventory, but it could be used to highlight just what
plants do need more reseach. I can't see why anyone wouldn't like
to facilitate interest in research.
Aren't many of these comments part of articles along with
species descriptions? The last couple of Nepenthes species I have
seen described in the CPN have paragraphs and charts detailing
why these plants are considered species by the authors.
I don't feel Jan should change the Database or the information
in it. Or add his opinions after years of research. However, a lot
of research has been done and those authors have given their views.
Could a seperate list of these opinions be made with a link to the
appropiate set of comments could be made from where these plants
are listed in the CP database.
Now as to what comments are to be used, I don't know how to handle
this sort of editting work, since I would guess that some papers are
frivolous or redunant, but many of the pertinent articles or sources
are/maybe(?) already listed in the database under each entry. And
permission to use these comments would also be needed.
It does sound like a lot of work though. I hope Charles wants to
pitch in. Jan, do you dislike the idea of your database having such
links (if they are even possible)?
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:39 PST