This document discusses issues with scientific names in collection databases and their impact on data usability. It notes that scientific names are central to organizing biological information but that problematic names like synonyms and misspellings can make data difficult to use. While collection managers have taxonomic expertise, integrators and IT specialists have more resources to validate names. There is a need for tools to identify problematic names quickly and more collaboration to standardize names in databases. The overarching goal of taxonomy is one agreed-upon name per taxon, but impediments like conflicting concepts and unresolved names present challenges.

1. NAMES
Luc Brouillet
Herbier Marie-Victorin

2. Species Scientific Names
• are the handle by which we manipulate a
wealth of biological information
• are basic to classification systems
• are central to collection databasing efforts

3. Problem
• Internet-published collection databases are
deemed to be useful to all users
• if data are perceived as too difficult to use,
users will reject them
• who is responsible to ensure that the handles
used to organize information are adequate ?
– collection ?
– integrator ?
– user ?

4. Names in taxonomy
• overarching goal of taxonomy :
one name per taxon
• impediments :
– taxon concepts
– large number of taxon names not typified or not
associated to accepted names
• all kinds of names in collections
• identification errors

5. Types of species/infraspecies names
found in collections - 1
• not problematic :
– accepted names
– homotypic synonyms of accepted names
– heterotypic synonyms of accepted names
aknowledged by specialists
– homonymous infraspecific names when infrataxa
are not recognized
– orthographic variants (nom. inval.) listed in
databases

6. Types of species/infraspecies names
found in collections - 2
• problematic :
– homonyms in different kingdoms (hemihomonyms)
– controversial heterotypic synonyms
– misused homonyms
– in part names
– sensu names
– orthographic variants not listed in databases
– published names not listed in databases
– unpublished names
– names with typos (incl. total fabrications) [usu corrected at entry]
– names with proper authority but incorrect rank (var. instead of f., etc.)
– anamorphs not associated with telomorphs (Fungi)
– authority issues

7. Name validation
• db main means of validating names
• complement : BHL
• nomenclature databases :
– names + citations
– without status evaluation
– without synonymy exc. basionyms + homotypic
• taxonomic databases (often regional) :
– names (+ citations)
– synonymy
– (sources)

8. Name Databases Issues
• extensive : best sources available
• complete : no
• accurate : not always
• contradictory between db : often
• internally contradictory : sometimes
• usage requires judgement and cannot be fully
automated

9. Taxonomic Databases Issues
• two types :
– specific taxonomic focus (ex. : ferns)
– regional focus
• up-to-date : often ± dated
• sources : not always provided
• congruence between db : not always
– taxonomic traditions/usages
– taxon concepts

10. Responsibility ?
• will end-users use data if names perceived as
having no coherence ?
– no
• who has the taxonomic expertise ?
• who is managing data ?
– collection data managers
• but who has tools/resources ?
– integrators
– IT specialists

11. Needs of data managers
• in collection db, most names are probably not
problematic
• IT tools to rapidly identify names that are
problematic
• more collaboration to improve names in
databases
• international consensus on taxonomy of taxa
based on systematic data