The web and the structure of taxonomy.

An easily accessible taxonomic knowledge base is critically important for all biodiversity-related sciences. At present, taxonomic information is organized and regulated by a system of rules and conventions that date back to the introduction of binomial nomenclature by Linnaeus. The taxonomy of any particular group of organisms comprises the sum information in the taxonomic literature, supported by designated type specimens in major collections. In this article, the way modern means of disseminating information will change the practice of taxonomy, in particular the Internet, is explored. Basic taxonomic information, such as specimen-level data, location of types, and name catalogues are already available, at least for some groups, on the Web. Specialist taxonomic databases, key-construction programs, and other software useful for systematists are also increasingly available. There has also been a move towards Web-publishing of taxonomic hypotheses, though as yet this is not fully permitted by the Codes of Nomenclature. A further and more radical move would be to transfer taxonomy completely to the Web. A possible model of this is discussed, as well as a pilot project, the "CATE" initiative, which seeks to explore the advantages and disadvantages of such a move. It is argued that taxonomy needs to forge better links with its user-communities to maintain its funding base, and that an important part of this is making the products of its research more accessible through the Internet.

[1]  Sean Martin,et al.  Globally distributed object identification for biological knowledgebases , 2004, Briefings Bioinform..

[2]  J. Giles Internet encyclopaedias go head to head , 2005, Nature.

[3]  K. Tribe Linnaeus. Nature and Nation , 2004 .

[4]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[5]  Kate E. Jones,et al.  Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates , 2006, Nature.

[6]  Declan Butler,et al.  Mashups mix data into global service , 2006, Nature.

[7]  Edmund A. Mennis The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations , 2006 .

[8]  M. Watson,et al.  The Prometheus Taxonomic Model: a practical approach to representing multiple classifications. , 2000 .

[9]  C. W. Stiles,et al.  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature , 1916, Nature.

[10]  Herbert Van de Sompel,et al.  The open archives initiative: building a low-barrier interoperability framework , 2001, JCDL '01.

[11]  James Surowiecki The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations Doubleday Books. , 2004 .

[12]  William John Waugh,et al.  DNA barcoding in animal species: progress, potential and pitfalls. , 2007, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[13]  Georgina M Mace,et al.  The role of taxonomy in species conservation. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[14]  Nicholas J Gotelli,et al.  A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[15]  斎藤 常正,et al.  International Code of Zoological Nomenclature,3rd Edition , 1985 .

[16]  P. Thacker Morphology: The Shape of Things to Come , 2003 .

[17]  Peter Suber,et al.  Open access, impact, and demand , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Catherine N. Norton,et al.  Taxonomic indexing--extending the role of taxonomy. , 2006, Systematic biology.

[19]  Arthur Cronquist,et al.  Guide to Standard Floras of the World. , 1985 .

[20]  John McNeill,et al.  International code of botanical nomenclature (Vienna Code) : adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress, Vienna, Austria, July 2005 , 2006 .

[21]  Y. Benkler,et al.  The Wealth of Networks , 2008 .

[22]  David F. Farr On-line keys : more than just paper on the web , 2006 .

[23]  Prokaryote taxonomy online: challenges ahead , 2002, Nature.

[24]  Mark W. Chase,et al.  Phylogeny and Evolution of Angiosperms , 2005 .

[25]  A. Kluge,et al.  Testability and the Refutation and Corroboration of Cladistic Hypotheses , 1997, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[26]  Gordon Russell,et al.  A Universal Character Model and Ontology of Defined Terms for Taxonomic Description , 2004, DILS.

[27]  D. Agosti Biodiversity data are out of local taxonomists' reach , 2006, Nature.

[28]  A. Polaszek A universal register for animal names , 2005, Nature.

[29]  Malcolm J Scoble,et al.  Unitary or unified taxonomy? , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[30]  R. J. Pankhurst,et al.  Practical Taxonomic Computing , 1991 .

[31]  W. Hennig Phylogenetic Systematics , 2002 .

[32]  M. Scoble,et al.  Geometrid Moths of the World: A Catalogue , 1999 .

[33]  A. Oren Prokaryote diversity and taxonomy: current status and future challenges. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[34]  Alfried P. Vogler,et al.  Recent advances in DNA taxonomy , 2007 .

[35]  H. Godfray Challenges for taxonomy , 2002, Nature.

[36]  Roderic D. M. Page Taxonomic names, metadata, and the Semantic Web , 2006 .

[37]  M. Graham The Pteromalidae of north-western Europe lHymenopterac Chalcidoidear , 1969 .

[38]  C. Marshall Encyclopedia of Life , 2008 .

[39]  Rich Salz,et al.  A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace , 2005, RFC.

[40]  C. W. Stiles International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature , 1978, Nature.

[41]  Gareth Nelson,et al.  Revisiting the Taxonomic Impediment , 2005, Science.

[42]  E. Wiley Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics , 1981 .

[43]  H Martin,et al.  Now is the time. , 1966, The Nova Scotia medical bulletin.

[44]  Zhi-qiang Zhang The making of a mega-journal in taxonomy , 2006 .

[45]  I. Kitching,et al.  Hawkmoths of the World: An Annotated and Illustrated Revisionary Checklist (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) , 2000 .

[46]  A. Brower Problems with DNA barcodes for species delimitation: ‘Ten species’ of Astraptes fulgerator reassessed (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) , 2006 .

[47]  Michael Seadle,et al.  International Conference on Digital Libraries , 2004 .

[48]  D. Box,et al.  Simple object access protocol (SOAP) 1.1 , 2000 .

[49]  P. Boyce,et al.  The Genera of Araceae , 1997 .

[50]  Ian J. Kitching,et al.  Cladistics: A Practical Course in Systematics , 1992 .

[51]  Walter G. Berendsohn,et al.  The concept of "potential taxa" in databases , 1995 .

[52]  R. Brummitt,et al.  World geographical scheme for recording plant distributions , 1992 .

[53]  C. Meyer,et al.  DNA Barcoding: Error Rates Based on Comprehensive Sampling , 2005, PLoS biology.

[54]  W. Stearn,et al.  The compleat naturalist: A life of Linnaeus, , 1971 .

[55]  Jonathan D Wren,et al.  Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific publications shared via the internet , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[56]  P. Raven,et al.  Taxonomy: Impediment or Expedient? , 2004, Science.