Collection image

NMNH people on EOL

Last updated over 2 years ago

These EOL members also work at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. The collection icon was taken by Chip Clark, a staff photographer who died in 2010.

Add a new comment

Newsfeed

  • Profile picture of петя спасова who took this action.

    петя спасова commented on "Katja Schulz":

    hi,katja i want to ask you some questions-what are credentials,how can i add names,and set them as exemplar on pages,i will be glad to see the answer...

    25 days ago

  • Profile picture of Jennifer Hammock who took this action.

    Jennifer Hammock commented on Jennifer Hammock's newsfeed:

    @Katja Schulz: I strongly suspect it's an error. I can't find any other references to that placement and our OBIS resource is out of date- Diadematidae has been moved since in their home classification. (I merged the misspelling into Echinothurioida.)

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on "Jennifer Hammock":

    Inventaire National du Patrimoine Naturel puts the Diadematidae in Echinothurioida. They may be following OBIS on this, although they use a different spelling for the superfamily: http://eol.org/pages/1987/names?all=1 Could you try to figure out the correct spelling and whether this is an error or a valid opinion?

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Blackhwak213 who took this action.

    Blackhwak213 commented on "Katja Schulz":

    thank you for the information Katja Schulz because i couldn't find it anywhere online its for my 7th grade science project (Endangered animals project)

    2 months ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on Katja Schulz's newsfeed:

    @Michаel Frаnkis: Actually, Yan just mentioned in another thread that the new Wikimedia Commons connector does not harvest subspecies. That would explain it.

    3 months ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on Katja Schulz's newsfeed:

    @Sarah Miller: Hm, that's odd. It's definitely overdue now. I will ask somebody from our technical team to check what's going on. Thanks!

    5 months ago

  • Profile picture of Cyndy Parr who took this action.

    Cyndy Parr commented on Cyndy Parr's newsfeed:

    @Bart C.: You can email it to hammockj@si.edu -- she's a pro at this. CSV is fine.

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Bart C. who took this action.

    Bart C. commented on "Cyndy Parr":

    Hi Cyndy, This is a reply on your answer on a comment I left on the "EOL Discussion Group" about a month ago. Relating to uploading lists of species in batch to a collection. You mentioned you could generate these if I send you the lists. Please tell me via which way I need to submit this. Would .csv format fine? Thanks, Bart

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Rene Noam who took this action.

    Rene Noam commented on "Katja Schulz":

    I would like to invite you to join "Project H2O: Hydro 2.0".

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Rene Noam who took this action.

    Rene Noam commented on "Jennifer Hammock":

    I would like to invite you to join "Project H2O: Hydro 2.0".

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on "Lourdes Chamorro":

    @Lourdes Chamorro: It looks like Apoderus giraffa should be merged with Trachelophorus giraffa. We could then select the hierarchy with Apoderus giraffa Jekel, 1860 as the preferred classification. Would that solve the problem? The weevil data in Catalogue of Life are unfortunately a mess. Lots of synonyms are listed as valid names, and lots of author data are mixed up. It's been a known issue for years.

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Lourdes Chamorro who took this action.

    Lourdes Chamorro commented on Lourdes Chamorro's newsfeed:

    You are welcome. Mostly yes. At least it has Jekel as the author, which is correct. T. giraffoides is not valid but appears as valid in wikipedia. Thanks for responding so quickly. The authors for almost all other species in the genus is wrong in EOL at the moment.

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of سعيد الرفاعي who took this action.

    سعيد الرفاعي commented on "Katja Schulz":

    ماذا يا اختي

    10 months ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on Katja Schulz's newsfeed:

    @Bruno Petriccione: I don't have enough of an understanding of the group to know how L. alpinum and L. nivale are differentiated. I recommend that you use the name that makes the most sense to you. If you think that Leontopodium alpinum should be recognized as a separate species, you can tag the images with "taxonomy:binomial=Leontopodium alpinum" If you think treating it at the subspecies level is appropriate, you can use "taxonomy:trinomial=Leontopodium nivale alpinum" In either case, your contributions will show up on the Leontopodium alpinum/Leontopodium nivale subsp. alpinum page.

    11 months ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on Katja Schulz's newsfeed:

    @David Illig: Thanks David, if you have updated the machine tags, the taxon association should fix itself within a day or two. No other action is required. Let me know if you notice any problems.

    11 months ago

  • Profile picture of Cyndy Parr who took this action.

    Cyndy Parr commented on Cyndy Parr's newsfeed:

    @Tom Devitt: Looks like you've been working things out with Katja. As you've learned, EOL is not designed for direct curation of names and hierarchies, as we are a consumer not producer of those. We'll work closely with you and the providers however. That said (and for future record): For any given image you will want to associate the image with the most specific valid name appropriate for the image. You only need to choose from one classification, your preference. You don't need to associate with synonyms or higher taxonomic names (though this should not cause problems if you do) because our system *should* take care of those. If the image includes more than one organism, you should associate with a name for each organism. If the identification is uncertain, I usually recommend associating only with the taxon at which you are certain (so if it is unclear which species in the genus it is, just associate with the genus). But if it is clearly between two particular species and both pages (and science) would benefit from the tentative identification, then I suppose you could associate with both names.

    about 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on Katja Schulz's newsfeed:

    @David Illig: I just checked, and the machine tag is still "taxonomy:binomial=Cymbalophora sp." Please also note that binomial tags should be used only for two-part names, i.e., when you know both the genus and the species. If you just know the genus, simply use the genus tag: http://www.flickr.com/groups/encyclopedia_of_life/discuss/72157629880163919/

    about 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on Katja Schulz's newsfeed:

    @Jack Hall: Neopanope texana is a synonym of Dyspanopeus texanus, i.e., these two names refer to the same species http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=98771

    about 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Jack Hall who took this action.

    Jack Hall commented on "Katja Schulz":

    Katja Listen the Neopanope Texana is a completely different specimen than the Dyspanus Texanus, you have to un merge the two page they're not the same creature

    about 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on Katja Schulz's newsfeed:

    @Deniz Martinez: HI Deniz, our instructions for content partners are here: http://eol.org/info/partners They can also reach us via our Contact Us form, by selecting "Become a content partner." Once they open the conversation, we'll be in touch via email.

    about 1 year ago