Names are key to the big new biology

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 686-691

  Patterson, D J ^a   Cooper, J ^b   Kirk, P M ^c   Pyle, R L ^d   Remsen, D P ^e  

^a MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b LANDCARE RESEARCH   (New Zealand)

^c CABI   (United Kingdom)

^d BISHOP MUSEUM   (United States)

^e GBIF   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA SET; ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; INTERNET; NOMENCLATURE; TAXONOMY;

ANIMAL; CLASSIFICATION; DATA BASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INTERNET; NOMENCLATURE; SHORT SURVEY;

ANIMALS; CLASSIFICATION; DATABASES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INFORMATICS; INTERNET; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 78149362354     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.004     Document Type: Short Survey

References (40)

1. National Research Council of the National Academies (2009) A New Biology for the 21st Century, The National Academies Press.
2. Hey, T. et al., eds (2009) The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery, Microsoft Research.
3. Kelling S., et al. Data-intensive science: a new paradigm for biodiversity studies. BioScience 2009, 59:613-620.
4. Page, R.D. (2010) Phyloinformatics in the age of Wikipedia. Nature Precedings: 28 June 2010.
5. Agnarsson I., Kuntner M. Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:531-539.
6. Wheeler, Q.D., (ed.), (2008) The New Taxonomy (Systematics Association, Special Vol. 76), CRC Press.
7. Hopkins G.W., Freckleton R.P. Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Anim. Conserv. 2002, 5:245-249.
8. Knapp, S. (2008) Taxonomy as a team sport. In The New Taxonomy (Systematics Association, Special Vol. 76) (Wheeler, Q., ed.), pp. 33-53, CRC Press.
9. Godfray C.H.J. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 2002, 417:17-19.
10. Bortulus A. Error cascades in the biological sciences: the unwanted consequences of using bad taxonomy in ecology. Ambio 2008, 37:114-118.
11. De Carvalho M.R., et al. Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evol. Biol. 2008, 34:140-143.
12. De Carvalho M.R., et al. Systematics must embrace comparative biology and evolution, not speed and automation. Evol. Biol. 2008, 35:150-157.
13. Stein L. Creating a bioinformatics nation. Nature 2002, 418:125.
14. Mace G.M., et al. Preserving the tree of life. Science 2003, 300:1707-1709.
15. Beach J.H., et al. Hierarchical taxonomic databases. Advances in Computer Methods for Systematic Biology: Artificial Intelligence, Databases, Computer Vision 1993, 241-256. John Hopkins University Press. R. Fortuner (Ed.).
16. Patterson D.J. Future Taxonomy. Systema Naturae 250 - the Linnaean Ark 2009, 115-124. CRC Press. A. Polaszek (Ed.).
17. Patterson D.J., et al. Taxonomic Indexing - extending what taxonomy is. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:367-373.
18. Franz N.M., Thau D. Biological taxonomy and ontology development: scope and limitations. Biodivers. Informatics 2010, 7:45-66.
19. Patterson D.J., et al. Principles for a names-based cyberinfrastructure to serve all of biology. Zootaxa 2008, 1950:153-163.
20. Wilson E.O. The encyclopedia of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18:77-80.
21. Patterson D.J. Encyclopedia of life. Information and Communication Technologies for Biodiversity Conservation and Agriculture 2010, 67-81. Shaker Verlag. L. Maurer, K. Tochterman (Eds.).
22. Kennedy J., et al. Standard data model representation for taxonomic information. Omics 2006, 10:220-230.
23. Chapman, A.D. (2009) Numbers of Living Species in Australia and the World (2nd edn), Australian Biological Resources Study.
24. Raup D. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? 1991, Norton.
25. Berendsohn W.G. The concept of potential taxa in databases. Taxon 1995, 44:207-212.
26. Berendsohn, W.G. and Geoffroy, M. (2007) Networking taxonomic concepts - uniting without " unitary-ism" In Biodiversity Databases: From Cottage Industry to Industrial Networks (Systematics Association Special Vol. 73) (Curry, G. and Humphries, C., eds), pp. 13-22, Taylor & Francis.
27. Chavan V., et al. Resolving taxonomic discrepancies: role of electronic catalogues of known organisms. Biodivers. Informatics 2005, 2:70-78.
28. Rappe M.S., et al. Cultivation of the ubiquitous SAR11 marine bacterioplankton clade. Nature 2002, 418:630-633.
29. van der Linde K., Houle D. A supertree analysis and literature review of the genus Drosophila and related genera. Insect Syst. Evol. 2008, 39:241-257.
30. ICZN (2010) Opinion 2245 (Case 3407) Drosophila Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera): Drosophila funebris Fabricius, 1787 is maintained as the type species. Bull. Zool. Nomenc. 67, 106-115.
31. McNeill, J. (1997) Key issues to be addressed. In The New Bionomenclature: The BioCode Debate (Biology International Special Issue 34) (Hawksworth, D.L., ed.), pp. 17-40, International Union of Biological Sciences.
32. Crous P.W., et al. MycoBank: an online initiative to launch mycology into the 21st century. Stud. Mycol. 2004, 50:19-22.
33. Polaszek A., et al. A universal register for animal names. Nature 2005, 437:477.
34. Pyle R., Michel E. Zoobank: Developing a nomenclatural tool for unifying 250 years of biological information. Zootaxa 2008, 1950:39-50.
35. Pyle R., Michel E. Unifying nomenclature: ZooBank and Global Names Usage Bank. Bull. Zool. Nomenc. 2009, 66:298.
36. Mayr E. What Makes Biology Unique? 2004, Cambridge University Press.
37. Berners-Lee, T. et al. (2006) Tabulator: Exploring and Analyzing Linked Data on the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web User Interaction Workshop (SWUI06), Athens, Georgia.
38. Page R.D.M. Biodiversity informatics: the challenge of linking data and the role of shared identifiers. Brief. Bioinform. 2008, 9:345-354.
39. De Rosnay J. Le macroscope: vers une Vision Globale 1975, Seuil.
40. Ausubel J.H. A botanical macroscope. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106:12569.