Roderic Page

My activity

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Tindariopsis":

    @Bob Corrigan: Agreed. There are a few things which came together to create this perfect storm (mapping names without authors may have been part of the problem).

    I only spotted this because I was browsing molluscs in BioNames and was suddenly confronted by a moth. Great argument for the desirability of interfaces that make it easy to check data.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Tindariopsis":

    The fail is strong with this one.

    Why is a butterfly picture shown for a mollusc genus?

    As far as I can work out, what has happened here is the following:

    1. EOL has followed ITIS in regarding Tindariopsis as a synonym of Saturnia

    2.However, Saturnia Seguenza 1877 (the mollusc genus) is a homonym of the butterfly genus Saturnia Schrank 1802

    3. The EOL mapping hasn't realised that there are two genera with the name "Saturnia" and has picked the butterfly

    4. Hence this mollusc has ended up embedded in the butterflies

    Other classifications, such as WORMS accept Tindariopsis as valid. Taxonomy, eh, gotta love it.

    over 1 year ago • edited: over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Loxodonta cyclotis (Matschie, 1900)":

    The name Elephas cyclotis was published by P. Matschie in "Über geographische Abarten des afrikanischen Elefanten" http://biostor.org/reference/107170 (this reference doesn't appear in the list from BHL http://eol.org/pages/289547/literature/bhl )

    about 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Megascolecidae":

    @Bob Corrigan: The problem is that Catalogue of Life did have a nice classification for these worms that listed a number of genera. In the version EOL has recently ingested, CoL have simply adopted the WORMS classification, which doesn't cover terrestrial taxa. As a result, the terrestrial earthworms in this family have simply disappeared! CoL doesn't seem to have a means to check whether each updated classification makes sense and it's approach of delegating parts of the tree of life to particular projects (e.g,. ITIS, WORMS, etc.) can cause problems if those projects have a specific bias (e.g., WORMS handles marine taxa).

    In other words, the prior version made sense, the latest one is an obvious botch, and I'm frustrated because cached classification data I have is now broken. It is time the field stopped messing about and adopted a single, global classification coupled with decent version control so that errors like this get scrutinised and fixed.

    about 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Megascolecidae":

    The Catalogue of Life classification http://eol.org/content_partners/14 for this family is broken. For reasons which surpass understanding the classification for this terrestrial family of earthworms has been taken from the World Register of Marine Species, which recognises a single genus (Pontodrilus).

    about 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Myrmekiaphila tigris Bond & Ray":

    See comment by Mike Taylor (@MikeTaylor) https://twitter.com/miketaylor/status/223710485546156033 regarding licensing of ZooKeys content. The original article http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.190.3011 is CC-BY yet here on EOL the images are CC-BY-NC-SA. Something's not right here...

    over 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Leptograpsus":

    @Roderic Page: OK, now it shows "7" :)

    over 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Leptograpsus":

    @Cyndy Parr: Nice (but the broader issue of "trusted" needs to be addressed). Oh, and why does the "media" tab still say "13 Media" when there are now only 7 images? Is it still counting the now hidden fish images?

    over 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Leptograpsus":

    @Katja Schulz: I know this is a hard problem (see my post http://iphylo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/gbif-classification-is-broken-how-do-we.html where I try to figure out why a mollusc name appears in GBIF's classification amongst the worms).

    But I hope you see my point that "trusted" is ambiguous in this context. I clearly can't trust the relationship between the name "Leptograpsus" and the image of a fish. So you're saying that I can trust the source of the image, and what that source asserts about the image, but I can't trust the association EOL has created with the crab name. How would I know this? In the case of the crab it's obvious that there's a problem, but in other cases it might not be. So "trusted" is not a useful label in this context unless I know what aspect to trust. This is especially an issue for automated tools built on the top of EOL's API.

    I guess I'm looking for a way to know how much to trust the link between a name and an image. One way would be if the EOL page exposed the reasoning behind the link (e.g., string matching, classification path matching, etc.). I'm also making a fuss about this because @Bob Corrigan once told me that "trust" is the unique advantage of EOL. That being the case, I'd want a little more clarity about what I'm supposed to trust.

    over 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Leptograpsus":

    @Bob Corrigan: Thanks! Unfortunately I can't see this ticket as I don't have access to the EOL Project Tracker.

    over 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Leptograpsus":

    @Bob Corrigan: Perhaps because there is a fish L. variegatus and a crab L. variegatus in the genera Lethrinus and Leptograpsus, respectively, the images have ended up being associated with the wrong taxon?

    My rather grumpy comment partly reflects my distrust of "trusted" as a term. I want evidence, and I want to know who says its trusted (and what their track record is). In other words, I want cues so that I can form my own notion of what trust to put in something. I may well use existing reputation as the basis of trusting something, but as a rule I want some evidence. Trust is earned, I don't think it can be simply asserted. Maybe EOL needs a reputation system along the line of http://stackoverflow.com?

    over 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Leptograpsus":

    I'm curious as to what "trusted" means in this context, because the "trusted" images for the crab Leptograpsus http://eol.org/pages/4266541/overview are for a fish Lethrinus variegatus (e.g., http://eol.org/data_objects/2300995 ). The untrusted images are of the crab. So, do I trust "trusted", in which case a crab I used to chase over rocks as a kid in New Zealand is apparently a fish, or do I ignore the "trusted" images, in which case what is the point of "trusted?" What does "trusted" mean, who marks them "trusted", and how can a trusted image be so patently wrong? Does it mean the source is trusted, the id is trusted, what exactly?

    over 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Figitidae":

    This page should be merged with http://eol.org/pages/20647550, and why all the "Image Not Published" images?

    over 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "":

    I suspect that the names in the Catalgoue of Life classification are errors, as "Rhiniinae" is a subfamily name, not a genus name. "Rhiniinae bicolor Macquart, 1843" isn't an actual taxon name, as far as I can wok out.

    almost 3 years ago

  • Profile picture of Roderic Page who took this action.

    Roderic Page commented on "Aenigma iridis":

    Looks like a simple typo. NCBI has this as "Aenigma iridis" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&;id=178192 based on a single sequence submitted by http://dx.doi.org/10.1673/031.008.6301 The original publication (see http://biostor.org/reference/71437) is an OCR nightmare as the genus name is written "ÆNIGMA". Nice example of NCBI error being propagated, and difficulty in locating original description due to OCR errors.

    about 3 years ago • edited: about 3 years ago