Patrick Leary

The EOL Profile Newsfeed contains comments left for its owner by other members, EOL Community invitations, and gathers updates associated with the items in the owner's EOL watch list.

Add a new comment

  • Profile picture of Cyndy Parr who took this action.

    Cyndy Parr commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: My opinion is that it is okay, especially for species that will have images that are almost impossible to trust. I'd rather see an exemplar marked as unreviewed, than trusted just to justify it as an exemplar, if that makes sense. Here's an example: http://eol.org/pages/311512/ The 2 trusted images are not very high quality, and an unreviewed image is much better and looks very much like the trusted images.

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Yan Wong who took this action.

    Yan Wong commented on "EOL Curators":

    Is it OK to pick unreviewed images as exemplars? For example, the only actual picture (rather than drawing) of human fleas is a microscope photo (by an EoL regular, as it happens), but it is not yet trusted: http://eol.org/pages/704391/media

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Jennifer Hammock who took this action.

    Jennifer Hammock chose to hide data on "Morone saxatilis (Walbaum, 1792)".

    habitat: agricultural feature

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Jennifer Hammock who took this action.

    Jennifer Hammock chose to hide data on "Pseudobalistes naufragium (Jordan & Starks, 1895)".

    habitat: protected area

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Thomas Horn who took this action.

    Thomas Horn commented on "EOL API Discussion Group":

    @Cyndy Parr: thanks Cyndy!

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Yan Wong who took this action.

    Yan Wong commented on "EOL API Discussion Group":

    @Cyndy Parr: Thanks Cyndy. I assumed GBIF and IRMNG hierarchies were missing, although they both exist (IRMNG @ http://www.marine.csiro.au/mirrorsearch/ir_search.taxon_info?id=11864276) because both were essentially duplicates of the WoRMS data. If it is a lag, it seems odd that both hierarchies are missing. It's not just this taxon either: out of 100 randomly chosen species from the OpenTree, I also find 3 or 4 others in GBIF that exist as species in EoL but do not have an associated GBIF hierarchy. For example, http://www.gbif.org/species/5993630/ http://www.gbif.org/species/6504225/ http://www.gbif.org/species/6126205/

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Cyndy Parr who took this action.

    Cyndy Parr commented on "EOL API Discussion Group":

    @Thomas Horn: Also, you can see many articles that use EOL here: http://www.mendeley.com/groups/3426251/eol-papers/papers/ The "Uses-EOL" tag filter isn't working online for me but it does work on my local client. In any case, we haven't tagged whether the use was via the API, unfortunately.

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Cyndy Parr who took this action.

    Cyndy Parr commented on "EOL API Discussion Group":

    @Thomas Horn: Thomas, be sure to cite: Parr, C. S., N. Wilson, P. Leary, K. S. Schulz, K. Lans, L. Walley, J. A. Hammock, A. Goddard, J. Rice, M. Studer, J. T. G. Holmes, and R. J. Corrigan, Jr. 2014. The Encyclopedia of Life v2: Providing Global Access to Knowledge About Life on Earth. Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1079, doi:10.3897/BDJ.2.e1079

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Cyndy Parr who took this action.

    Cyndy Parr commented on "EOL API Discussion Group":

    @Yan Wong: There are only two records in GBIF and EOL doesn't show a map, suggesting that EOL doesn't know that GBIF knows it exists. I wonder if this missing GBIF info is because of a lag in updating? The fact that the name is from WoRMS shouldn't be an issue.

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Yan Wong who took this action.

    Yan Wong commented on "EOL API Discussion Group":

    I'm trying to look up species like http://www.gbif.org/species/6459778/ from GBIF using the search_by_provider API (http://eol.org/api/docs/search_by_provider), but the API doesn't return any results, presumably because EoL only has a WoRMS entry for this species (http://eol.org/pages/4287771/overview). Does EoL ignore the GBIF entry simply to avoid duplication (because GBIF actually gets it from WoRMS)? If so, is there any other way to get the species, other than by name?

    about 1 month ago • edited: about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Jeremy Rice who took this action.

    Jeremy Rice commented on "EOL Curators":

    This comment was deleted.

    about 1 month ago • deleted: about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Yan Wong who took this action.

    Yan Wong commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Jeremy Rice: Ah, great, thanks. Apologies for posting this in curators, BTW, I intended to post it in EoL API discussion group: http://eol.org/communities/121/newsfeed

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Jeremy Rice who took this action.

    Jeremy Rice commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Katja Schulz: As KS said, it actually *is* available; it's 1347. It just has a funny name, so you cannot tell. ...But that's really the hierarchy.

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: oh, and if it helps in the meantime, the current hierarchy id for IRMNG is 1347, so you should be able to get the root taxa like this: http://eol.org/api/hierarchies/1.0/1347.json?cache_ttl=

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: It looks like this is a bug. IRMNG is supposed to be supported as a hierarchy provider. I'll report it. Hopefully, it will be an easy fix.

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Yan Wong who took this action.

    Yan Wong commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Bob Corrigan: Here's another example where the image is currently the exemplar, even though the discussion on the page implies a different exemplar was deliberately set: http://eol.org/data_objects/26853984

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Yan Wong who took this action.

    Yan Wong commented on "EOL Curators":

    Any idea why IRMNG isn't supported as a hierarchy provider in http://eol.org/api/docs/provider_hierarchies ? I'm trying to map OpenTree identifiers onto EoL page IDs (http://eol.org/forums/8/topics/93/posts/306) and it seems if I use GBIF, NCBI, IndexFungorum and IRMNG, I can find 99.97 % of the OpenTree species on EoL.

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Thomas Horn who took this action.

    Thomas Horn commented on "EOL API Discussion Group":

    I am currently working on a manuscript involving the application of the eol API. If you have published or know of any publications using the api / eol data I would be grateful if you can send me a DOI or link. Thanks and all the best for the remaining days of 2015. Thomas thomas.horn@kit.edu

    about 1 month ago • edited: about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Bob Corrigan who took this action.

    Bob Corrigan commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Michаel Frаnkis: Michael and Kate - I'm reluctant to make blanket statements, but I can safely say that you and other curators should always exercise your best judgment when choosing photos. Where a choice exists, I would invite you to choose a photo that embraces both scientific accuracy and aesthetic quality. Per Michael's comment in para3, this is information we would very much like to see associated with taxon pages - let's talk about the best way to do that. ***As always, thanks for everything you do for EOL***

    about 1 month ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    I'd say we should select known wild origin, 100% of the time. Species in captivity / cultivation are frequently hybrids, or misidentified, often atypical, and do not show the taxon in its natural environment. Even where the species (as currently defined) may be obvious, subspecies usually won't be known; this leads to problems with time as subspecies are shown by further research to be distinct species, and the photos change from 'species identified' to 'unidentified'.

    Case in point: the Ptilopsis owls of Africa. These were formerly regarded as a single species, Ptilopsis leucotis, but this was recently split into two species, Ptilopsis leucotis in the northern subtropics, and Ptilopsis granti in the southern subtropics. The two species are easily identified in the wild by location and vocally, but are visually indistinguishable. Ptilopsis owls are common in captivity, and most are labelled Ptilopsis leucotis, though many (most?) of them are actually likely to be Ptilopsis granti due to its greater accessibility to markets. So captive specimens of Ptilopsis are not identifiable, and quite simply can't be trusted.

    To draw a similar parallel, directly relevant to what you say: we have a few photos from the wild of Ailurus fulgens which are of mediocre photographic quality (camera trap results), and dozens of photos from zoos, many of high photographic quality. But not one of the zoo photos is identified to either source location or to subspecies (A. f. fulgens in the Himalaya, A. f. styani in SW China). If future research shows a deep genetic divide between the two subspecies (or even between other as-yet un-named populations) and thus a species split (very possible, even likely, given the barriers to migration in the deep valleys of the area), then every single one of those zoo photos becomes worthless as just unidentified Ailurus sp. (as they already are unidentifiable to subspecies), and might as well be deleted.

    This can even affect species which one might think to be no-brainer identifications: how many captive specimens of Loxodonta africana might actually turn out to be Loxodonta cyclotis misnamed? Answer: probably not many, but we don't, and effectively can't, know precisely.

    about 1 month ago