Arthur Chapman

Environmental Consultant and Wildlife Photographer

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 Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Thomas Wesener: Thanks, we need to sort this out with admin tools. I'll get the process started, but it may take a couple of days for the process to finish.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Thomas Wesener who took this action.

    Thomas Wesener commented on "EOL Curators":

    GBIF-Maps While nice, they often display as the locality the Museum where the specimen is stored, not where it actually lives. Tropical taxa suddenly appear in London, Berlin and Paris... I actually did not see a single GBIF map (at least in class Diplopoda) that showed the correct distribution of a taxon. Could they be removed from EOL as a bulk?

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Thomas Wesener who took this action.

    Thomas Wesener commented on "EOL Curators":

    Hello, I have some problems on the Haplophyllum page. They are plants but listed as millipedes (Diplopoda), because the name is used in both. There are tons pf pictures, could someone repair this. I tried with untrusting and comments, but the images still appear as 'trusted' under millipedes.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Arthur Bogan who took this action.

    Arthur Bogan commented on "EOL Curators":

    there is a recent book on local classifications entitled Every Living Thing, by Rob Dunn, NCSU that touches on this topic as well.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Patrick Kelley who took this action.

    Patrick Kelley commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Cyndy Parr: @Cyndy Parr. After speaking with other folks yesterday, I'm now looking into following up on this. So, thanks for pointing out the authors in the folk biology literature. I think a global mapping project would be both interesting and useful to biologists. I've contacted folks at the Google research group to see if this would be interesting to them (unless one of you has another suggestion??!?).

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Quentin Groom: Thanks, we'll get them uploaded as soon as possible, with BSBI as the supplier.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Cyndy Parr who took this action.

    Cyndy Parr commented on "Arthur Chapman":

    @Arthur Chapman: Arthur, your comment appears only on your personal newsfeed not on the EOL Curators discussion. You might want to repost it there.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Cyndy Parr who took this action.

    Cyndy Parr commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Patrick Kelley: Patrick, that sounds like a fascinating project. There is also a fairly deep literature on "folk biology." If someone is interested in following up I recommend the works of Scott Atran and Douglas Medin. If I recall, they found that genus level categorizations (and hence, names) were more prevalent in languages because congeners were unlikely to be sympatric.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Quentin Groom who took this action.

    Quentin Groom commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Quentin Groom: Yes, the BSBI is fine with you using these names.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Quentin Groom who took this action.

    Quentin Groom commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Katja Schulz: I've contacted someone in the BSBI who will be able to give us a quick answer.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Michаel Frаnkis: Thanks, Michael. We can get these names uploaded. Should we contact someone at BSBI to make sure they don't have a problem with us using their list and attributing it to them?

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of tony rebelo who took this action.

    tony rebelo commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Arthur Bogan: Iso standards have been provided for languages, which is great. But we have not discussed how to deal with "recommended" names - the issue is that (some) different countries have their own official lists. There are two options here: (1) acknowledge that different countries have different official common names - in which case we need the iso standards for countries; (2) follow the bird route and compile an international official list, which has the simplicity of a single "official' name, but results in local names being lost, the tyranny of the first, biggest, richest and most organized bodies dictating to other organizations/countries what names will be used (and the format, styles and lexicography). The issue is slightly more complicated as there may be even be state/province/county official lists and even local lists with political sensitivities. And how should we code "synonyms" (alternative names in use not on the official lists), and old names (synonyms no longer in use, past names). Ideally, if we want to attempt something like a phylogenetic and geographical analysis of common names, it would also be nice to have an idea of how widespread they are used: a single author's name or widely used all over: No doubt google would be a great tool for this for current names but historical names might be a little more difficult.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Arthur Chapman who took this action.

    Arthur Chapman commented on Arthur Chapman's newsfeed:

    I think we need to keep in mind why we want to include common names. For my mind it is so they can be searched for, and often common names are regional - even within one country, so we should list as many as possible so they can be searched. I like Michael's original idea of having some structure to how they are written. The bird people do this well and I have tried to bring this into the way I do plants (and insects) etc. For example Livistona nitida - "Carnavon Gorge Cabbage-Palm" Palms are a well-known group and thus get a Capital 'P' . There are then groups of palms of which "Cabbage-Palms" are one so they get a capital and a hyphen and then within those you have the "Australian Cabbage-Palm", "Carnarvon Gorge Cabbage-Palm", etc. Another group of plants are known as "Beauty-heads" It would have the capital 'B' and a lower-case 'h' as the "Heads" are not a group on the own. I am in favour of the judicial use of capitals in the names as above. I don't think we should force definitive lists of common names - it defeats the purpose, although lists of common names are good and encourage (rather then force) their use. I like the Atlas of Living Australia's treatment of common names - where full lists are given, and you can "vote" as to what you think is the most appropriate/common, etc. and that moves it up in the order in which they are displayed.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Katja Schulz: Can't remember if I've mentioned it before, but the official standard list of English names for European plants can be found on the BSBI website here (excel file).

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Patrick Kelley who took this action.

    Patrick Kelley commented on "EOL Curators":

    I joined this discussion rather late, but here are some additional thoughts. Someone brought up the how there may be multiple common names within a given language, owing to dialect differences. One additional consideration is how many common names can often be used to describe multiple species (e.g. "bream" for several species of sunfish in the southern US and elsewhere). I'm imagining that this would be a very interesting sideline project that categorize the geographic and phylogenetic distribution of common names, something akin to the Harvard Survey of Dialects (http://www4.uwm.edu/FLL/linguistics/dialect/maps.html). It would be especially interesting to see how common names become more specific or more general in zones of sympatry and allopatry.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Katja Schulz who took this action.

    Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Arthur Bogan: If any of these lists become available on the web, it would be great if you could post a link here. We should should make sure we have these names in our database.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Arthur Bogan who took this action.

    Arthur Bogan commented on "EOL Curators":

    This discussion on the use of common names and capitalization is interesting. Mollusks in North America have a standardized list of common names for 6,273 marine, freshwater and terrestrial mollusks (Turgeon et al. 1998, second edition). The American Fisheries Society is publishing a revised and updated conservation assessment for freshwater mussels covering Canada, United States and Mexico and a new conservation status list for the freshwater gastropods of Canada and the United States. We are moving to use capitalized common names. Common names of the freshwater gastropods need to be revised to be more internally consistent. These two lists are soon to be put on a two year cycle for revision and should be posted to the web. The development of a standardized list with common names for mollusks in the United States became the responsibility of the American Malacoogical Union, Council of Systematic Malacologists in April 1983 with the first list published in 1998. Art Bogan

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of Andrew Brower who took this action.

    Andrew Brower commented on "EOL Curators":

    @tony rebelo: I have my own personal prescriptions, such as using an apostrophe when a species is named after someone, but that does not mean that I expect anyone else to follow my lead. I think that language works best when people can clearly and unambiguously communicate with one another, and ultimately that is the goal of scientific nomenclature. Given that there are hundreds or thousands of languages in the word, I doubt very much that we will ever reach consensus on a set of universal common names for all taxa. If, as Tony suggests, we were to approach the issue philosophically, I suppose that all material "things" are individuals and so should be discussed and addressed with proper names. Maybe we'll wind up like Germans and capitalize all our nouns? cheers, AB

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of tony rebelo who took this action.

    tony rebelo commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Deniz Martinez: Scientific names have to be prescriptive, but common names can be either. Unfortunately there are lots of prescriptive approaches to common names, from national lists, copy editors and official lists (often required for legal purposes). It would be great to be descriptive, but this appears to be a rare approach, usually done with local indigenous and unwritten languages. The moment the common names come to be printed or published prescriptive standardization follows. Field guides are the worse of these, standardizing and formatting common usage into "standard English" (or what-ever language). Just looking at common names on iSpot in South Africa they are fluid and inexact, often changing with context, and sometimes remaining the same as the identity of the organism (its scientific name anyway) changes with more accurate ID. But these are different issues to "what is a common name"? Is it a descriptive phrase? Is it a Proper Noun? These are fundamental differences in approach, different orthographies, different styles. Will we always have the Steller Seacow vs the Steller's sea cow schools, with trends oscillating between approaches as fashion, personalities and practicalities dictate?

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of tony rebelo who took this action.

    tony rebelo commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Andrew Brower: @Andrew - is it not weird that you claim not be be prescriptive but then criticism the use of Steller Jay or Mourning Cloak - is that not being prescriptive in demanding a collective noun approach where people use Proper Nouns? In many field guides the use of one approach or the other is often determined by the copy editor either deciding for or against apostrophes, and then rigorously applying it across the board. Thus what enters print is often not what is in use, but once in print, becomes what is used. The insistence of transferring genitive in the Latin name to the Proper Noun is not what is often in use, no matter how logical, or how certain people insist on one convention or the other. So if I call your tree the Osage Orange or the Bodark am I incorrect - will you still say that it is OK because it is supposed to be "unregulated." In which case we can have Greater Crested Grebe or Great Crested Grebe or Great Crest Grebe or Great-crest Grebe, and clutter indexes with a myriad of similar alternatives used by difference cliques. Is that desirable. Might the above not easiest be summarized Great Crest Grebe and allow users to meld the terms into whatever way they desire. It is amazing how many terms that sound wrong in one context are in use in another (and ruthlessly standardized by copy editors).

    over 1 year ago