Dear Gary,
I would suggest following WoRMS. It is well curated and kept up to date. Of course names will change, but the new names become readily available. Although I haven't looked very recently and am out of town, I think the genus-level classification of Conidae in WoRMS is also up to date. Currently there are 4-6 genera in Conidae now, but ~80-90% of all the species remain in Conus.
Alan
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Gary Kidder wrote:
>
> My apologies for cross posting on here and NHCOLL.
>
>
>
> This question is mostly directed to folks that work with Invertebrate collections where frequent taxonomic changes are a part of
> life. That being said, any other thoughts are appreciated also.
>
>
>
> I am currently in the process of preparing approximately 30,000+ malacology specimens for cataloging into our Invertebrate Zoology
> Department. Of those 30,000 specimens many species are only represented by 1-5 specimens. I mention this to put into context the
> taxonomic conundrum I˘m in. In our database each species has its own taxonomic file that includes its phylogenetic hierarchy. For
> our existing collection that phylogenetic hierarchy would probably be considered outdated and our main problem is two-fold. Our first
> problem is the constant changes that are made at the genus and species level and the time required to constantly and update our
> records. For example, because of the constant changes in both Conidae and Cypraeidae we only use Conus and Cypraea as accepted
> genus˘s. Our second problem is determining the reliability of new taxonomy.
>
>
>
> My question is this, as fellow institutions with a responsibility for scientific accuracy, what do you use? What debates/pros/cons
> have you had by the way you keep your records? Some of our thoughts have been iDigBio, EOL, WoRMS, and GBIF. That being said, we˘ve
> seen conflicting information between sites and having the time to check each source in instances like this seems almost impossible.
>
>
>
> In this specific instance, my biggest concern here is inadvertently creating duplicate taxonomy records because the new records
> provided will not necessarily match our existing ones. I know the source they will be using and have purposely not said what it is so
> that I can get honest opinions about sources. I am also interested in knowing if other institutions have picked a specific standard
> to go by. Is the source one that can be found online, do you rely on previous work done in your collection, and/or do you rely on
> older books written on taxonomy?
>
>
>
> Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to contact me on or off list.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> Gary L. Kidder
>
> Inventory Manager - Collections
>
> theHoustonMuseumofnaturalscience
> 5555 Hermann Park Drive, Houston, TX 77030-1799
>
> [log in to unmask] (713) 639-4629 ext. 4673
>
> Please help reduce carbon footprints by not printing email unless it is necessary...
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on
> molluscs To leave this list, click on the following web link: http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1 Type your email
> address and name in the appropriate box and click leave the list.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
