Hopefully, if the criticisms are substantive, they will be published in a more permanent place than some blog. Today's blog lines tomorrow's virtual birdcage.
As Doug notes, if "more than half" of the 58% misidentifications are not actual misidentifications, then that means that, still, something like 25% of the specimens actually ARE misidentified. (Or were. One imagines that if Goodwin et al, have made the
effort to note that the specimens are misidentified, they have also taken the time to correct those misidentifications). Isn't that why we do revisions?
On a related digitization front, more than a decade after coming into existence, Catalog of Life still lists ten "species" of the nymphalid genus Agrias (there are four, according to Gerardo Lamas, and Agrias itself is now viewed as a junior synonym of Prepona)
and some 109 Heliconius "species" (~45-50 valid species as far as I am aware). (These two genera are my test cases - I suspect that all the other butterfly names are just as messy). This confused nomenclature is based on the card catalog of
available names from the British Museum, transcribed some years ago by Beccaloni et al, I believe, which somebody at ITIS erroneously decided were all valid names. Thankfully, some of the CoL names are now indicated
as "infraspecific" (not a term used in zoological nomenclature), but they are misleadingly listed as subspecies of invalid taxa, because things like "Heliconius aglaope" are listed as species.
Are those names "wrong" or are they just names that "need to be updated"? And if so, who is going to update them? Hopefully someone who understands the ICZN Code.
-- Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's) http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82