1. Names are not sufficient: the challenge of documenting organism identity R.K. Peet, J.B.Kennedy, and N.M. Franz and The Ecological Society of America Vegetation Panel The SEEK development team

2. Accurate identification and labelling of organisms is a critical part of collecting, recording and reporting biological data. Increasingly research in biodiversity and ecology is based on the integration (and re-use) of multiple datasets. What was a minor annoyance for a few tens of records becomes intractable when looking at a million records.

3. The Taxonomic database challenge: Standardizing organisms and communities The problem: Integration of data potentially representing different times, places, investigators and taxonomic standards. The traditional solution: A standard list of organisms / communities.

4. Carya ovata (Miller) K. Koch Carya carolinae-septentrionalis (Ashe) Engler & Graebner Carya ovata (Miller) K. Koch sec. FNA 1997sec. USDA 2005 Three concepts of shagbark hickory Splitting one species into two illustrates the ambiguity often associated with scientific names.

5. High-elevation fir trees of western North America AZ NM CO WY MT AB eBC wBC WA OR Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica Abies lasiocarpa var. lasiocarpa Distribution USDA - ITIS Flora North America Abies bifoliaAbies lasiocarpa

6. R. plumosa R plumosa v. intermedia R. plumosa v. plumosa R. intermedia R. plumosa v. interrupta R. pineticola R. plumosa R. sp. 1 R. plumosa v. plumosa R. plumosa v. pineticola Multiple concepts of Rhynchospora plumosa s.l. Elliot 1816 Gray 1834 Kral 2003 Peet 2004? 1 2 3 Chapman 1860

7. Aus aus L.1758 (v) Aus L.1758 Xus Pargiter 2003 Xus beus (Archer) Pargiter 2003. in Pargiter 2003 (ii) Aus L.1758 Aus bea Archer 1965 in Archer 1965 (i) Aus L.1758 Aus aus L.1758 in Linneaus 1758 Aus bea Archer 1965 Aus cea BFry 1989 (iii) Aus L.1758 in Fry 1989 Aus ceus BFry 1989 Aus aus L. 1758 A diligent nomenclaturist, Pyle (1990), notes that the species epthithets of Aus bea and Aus cea are of the wrong gender and publishes the corrected names Aus beus corrig. Archer 1965 and Aus ceus corrig. BFry 1989 Tucker publishes his revison without noting Pyle’s corrigendum of the name of Aus cea Pargiter publishes his revison using Pyle’s corrigendum of the epithet bea to beus and Aus cea to Aus ceus. Timeline showing taxonomic history (revisions and nomenclatural changes) pertaining to species comprising the imaginary genus Aus. Aus aus L.1758 in Tucker 1991 (iv) Aus L.1758 Aus cea BFry 1989

8. Standardized taxon lists fail to allow dataset integration The reasons include: Taxonomic concepts are not defined (just lists), Multiple party perspectives on taxonomic concepts and names cannot be supported or reconciled, The user cannot reconstruct the database as viewed at an arbitrary time in the past. This is the single largest impediment to large-scale synthesis in ecology

9. NameReferenceConcept Taxonomic theory A taxon concept represents a unique combination of a name and a reference. Report -- name sec reference..

10. NameConceptUsage A usage represents an association of a concept with a name. The name used in defining the concept need not be the same name used in your work. e.g. Carya alba = Carya tomentosa sec. Gleason & Cronquist 1991. Usage can be used to apply multiple name systems to a concept

11. Data models and data exchange standards Numerous data models incorporate concepts. The IOPI, VegBank, and Taxonomer models are optimized for different uses. SEEK, GBIF, and TDWG, are seeking a consensus model to be voted on August 2005 by TDWG

12. Relationships among concepts Exactly equal (identification) Congruent, equal (=) Includes (>) Included in (<) Overlaps (><) Disjunct (|)

13. 1. When reporting identity of organisms in publications or data, provide not only the full scientific name of each kind of organism recognized, but also the reference that formed the basis of the taxonomic concept. e.g., Abies lasiocarpa sec. Flora North America 1997. Best Practices

14. 2. Reference high quality sources for taxon concepts such as a major compendium that provides its own defined concepts or a source that references the concepts of others. Best Practices

15. 3. Avoid comprehensive, synonymized checklists (e.g. ITIS) as they typically lack true taxonomic descriptions or circumscriptions; then can be considered if they contain taxonomic concepts sufficient for documenting organism identity. Best Practices

16. 4. Identifications for organisms should be by reference to credible, authoritatively published taxonomic concepts, rather than merely references to other identifications. Best Practices

17. 5. Identifications should include linkage to at least one concept, but need not be limited to a single concept. Eg. -- < Potentilla sec. Cronquist 1991 + ~ Potentilla simplex sec Cronquist 1991 + ~ Potentilla canadensis sec Cronquist 1991 Best Practices

18. 6. Where appropriate, recorded identifications should be modified by supplemental information. Metadata is good, but is hard to use. Best Practices

19. 7. Use Internet-based taxonomic resources that document concepts only if they archive old versions and enable tracking of concepts time. Best Practices

20. Step 1: Adoption of minimum standards and best practices by high-quality journals, funding agencies, and professional organizations. Distributed information systems - and the way ahead

21. Step 2: Creation, availability, and maintenance of databases that document core sets of taxonomic concepts and the relationships of these concepts to each other. The way ahead

22. Registration system and standard identifiers for names, references, and concepts Essential for data exchange SEEK is in the early design stages for a identifier system and central database.

23. True concept-based checklists Equivalent of ITIS but with concept documentation and including how other concepts map onto the concepts accepted by the party. Several are operative or in development including EuroMed, IOPI-GPC, Biotics, VegBank. Concept documentation planned for ITIS/USDA.

24. Step 3: Development and provision of tools to facilitate mark-up of data and manuscripts with taxonomic concepts The way ahead

25. Step 4: Development and availability of a full information infrastructure to exploit the potential of concept- enriched data and publications for information discover and analysis. The way ahead

26. Publishers, curators and data managers need to tag taxon interpretations with concepts Precedence exists with tagging literature citations and GenBank accessions Presses are linking scientific names in many ejournals to ITIS (e.g. Evolution, Ecology)

27. Tools to develop and map concepts Taxonomists need mapping and visualization tools for relating concepts of various authors. SEEK will build prototypes for review and possible adoption. Aggregators need tools for mapping relationships among concepts. Users need tools for entering legacy concepts. Several are in development

28. Data Set Ecological Data Set Ecological data set providers Concept Provider 1 e.g. Fishbase Concept Provider 3 e.g. Prometheus Concept Provider 2 e.g. ITIS Taxonomic concept providers Taxonomy transfer schema - TML Concept matching/expansion/… Weighted concepts Semantic Mediation System Return list of Data Sets User’s Taxonomic concept + quality measure Name/Concept Repository Ecological metadata language - EML (Containing Collector’s Taxonomic concept(s)) EML repository Taxon coverage SEEK High-Level Approach