More Like this

1. Descriptions of four new species of Minyomerus Horn, 1876 sec. Jansen & Franz, 2018 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), with notes on their distribution and phylogeny

   https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5633  

   Jansen, M. Andrew; Franz, Nico M. (October 2018, PeerJ)

   This contribution adopts the taxonomic concept approach, including the use oftaxonomic concept labels(name sec. [according to] source) and region connection calculus-5 (RCC–5) articulations and alignments. Prior to this study, the broad-nosed weevil genusMinyomerusHorn, 1876 sec. Jansen & Franz, 2015 (Curculionidae [non-focal]: Entiminae [non-focal]: Tanymecini [non-focal]) contained 17 species distributed throughout the desert and plains regions of North America. In this review ofMinyomerussec. Jansen & Franz, 2018, we describe the following four species as new to science:Minyomerus ampullaceussec. Jansen & Franz, 2018 (henceforth: [JF2018]), new species,Minyomerus franko[JF2018], new species,Minyomerus sculptilis[JF2018], new species, andMinyomerus tylotos[JF2018], new species. The four new species are added to, and integrated with, the preceding revision, and an updated key and phylogeny ofMinyomerus[JF2018] are presented. A cladistic analysis using 52 morphological characters of 26 terminal taxa (5/21 outgroup/ingroup) yielded a single most-parsimonious cladogram (Length = 99 steps, consistency index = 60, retention index = 80). The analysis reaffirms the monophyly ofMinyomerus[JF2018] with eight unreversed synapomorphies. The species-group placements, possible biogeographic origins, and natural history of the new species are discussed in detail. 

   more » « less
2. TaxonWorks: a Use Case in Documenting of Etymology of Generic Names in Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera)

   https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.2.25724  

   Dmitriev, Dmitry (May 2018, Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)

   The 3i World Auchenorrhyncha database (http://dmitriev.speciesfile.org) is being migrated into TaxonWorks (http://taxonworks.org) and comprises nomenclatural data for all known Auchenorrhyncha taxa (leafhoppers, planthoppers, treehoppers, cicadas, spittle bugs). Of all those scientific names, 8,700 are unique genus-group names (which include valid genera and subgenera as well as their synonyms). According to the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, a properly formed species-group name when combined with a genus-group name must agree with the latter in gender if the species-group name is or ends with a Latin or Latinized adjective or participle. This provides a double challenge for researchers describing new or citing existing taxa. For each species, the knowledge about the part of speech is essential information (nouns do not change their form when associated with different generic names). For the genus, the knowledge of the gender is essential information. Every time the species is transferred from one genus to another, its ending may need to be transformed to make a proper new scientific name (a binominal name). In modern day practice, it is important, when establishing a new name, to provide information about etymology of this name and the ways it should be used in the future publications: the grammatical gender for a genus, and the part of speech for a species. The older names often do not provide enough information about their etymology to make proper construction of scientific names. That is why in the literature, we can find numerous cases where a scientific name is not formed in conformity to the Rules of Nomenclature. An attempt was made to resolve the etymology of the generic names in Auchenorrhyncha to unify and clarify nomenclatural issues in this group of insects. In TaxonWorks, the rules of nomenclature are defined using the NOMEN onthology (https://github.com/SpeciesFileGroup/nomen). 

   more » « less
3. Nomenclatural changes in the suborders Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera) and Paleorrhyncha (Palaeohemiptera)

   https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4881.1.2  

   DMITRIEV, DMITRY A. (November 2020, Zootaxa)

   null (Ed.)

   Nomenclatural changes are proposed for numerous taxon names in the Insect orders Hemiptera and Palaeohemiptera. New replacement names are proposed for six genera, three subgenera, 55 species and six subspecies, additionally a homonymous name for a genus and eight homonymous names for species are substituted with the names of junior synonyms; 13 new synonyms are recognized; type species are fixed for four genera; 26 new combinations for species names are established. 

   more » « less
4. Avenues into Integration: Communicating taxonomic intelligence from sender to recipient

   https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.4.59006  

   Sterner, Beckett; Upham, Nathan; Sen, Atriya; Franz, Nico (October 2020, Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)

   null (Ed.)

   “What is crucial for your ability to communicate with me… pivots on the recipient’s capacity to interpret—to make good inferential sense of the meanings that the declarer is able to send” (Rescher 2000, p148). Conventional approaches to reconciling taxonomic information in biodiversity databases have been based on string matching for unique taxonomic name combinations (Kindt 2020, Norman et al. 2020). However, in their original context, these names pertain to specific usages or taxonomic concepts, which can subsequently vary for the same name as applied by different authors. Name-based synonym matching is a helpful first step (Guala 2016, Correia et al. 2018), but may still leave considerable ambiguity regarding proper usage (Fig. 1). Therefore, developing "taxonomic intelligence" is the bioinformatic challenge to adequately represent, and subsequently propagate, this complex name/usage interaction across trusted biodiversity data networks. How do we ensure that senders and recipients of biodiversity data not only can share messages but do so with “good inferential sense” of their respective meanings? Key obstacles have involved dealing with the complexity of taxonomic name/usage modifications through time, both in terms of accounting for and digitally representing the long histories of taxonomic change in most lineages. An important critique of proposals to use name-to-usage relationships for data aggregation has been the difficulty of scaling them up to reach comprehensive coverage, in contrast to name-based global taxonomic hierarchies (Bisby 2011). The Linnaean system of nomenclature has some unfortunate design limitations in this regard, in that taxonomic names are not unique identifiers, their meanings may change over time, and the names as a string of characters do not encode their proper usage, i.e., the name “Genus species” does not specify a source defining how to use the name correctly (Remsen 2016, Sterner and Franz 2017). In practice, many people provide taxonomic names in their datasets or publications but not a source specifying a usage. The information needed to map the relationships between names and usages in taxonomic monographs or revisions is typically not presented it in a machine-readable format. New approaches are making progress on these obstacles. Theoretical advances in the representation of taxonomic intelligence have made it increasingly possible to implement efficient querying and reasoning methods on name-usage relationships (Chen et al. 2014, Chawuthai et al. 2016, Franz et al. 2015). Perhaps most importantly, growing efforts to produce name-usage mappings on a medium scale by data providers and taxonomic authorities suggest an all-or-nothing approach is not required. Multiple high-profile biodiversity databases have implemented internal tools for explicitly tracking conflicting or dynamic taxonomic classifications, including eBird using concept relationships from AviBase (Lepage et al. 2014); NatureServe in its Biotics database; iNaturalist using its taxon framework (Loarie 2020); and the UNITE database for fungi (Nilsson et al. 2019). Other ongoing projects incorporating taxonomic intelligence include the Flora of Alaska (Flora of Alaska 2020), the Mammal Diversity Database (Mammal Diversity Database 2020) and PollardBase for butterfly population monitoring (Campbell et al. 2020). 

   more » « less
5. Seenku

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100318000312  

   McPherson, Laura (January 2019, Journal of the International Phonetic Association)

   Seenku (ISO 639-3: sos) is a Western Mande language of the Samogo group, whose other members include languages like Dzùùngoo (Solomiac 2014), Jowulu (Djilla, Eenkhoorn & Eenkhoorn-Pilon 2004), and Duungooma (Hochstetler 1996), spoken on either side of the Mali-Burkina Faso border. The endonymic language name Seenku sɛ̃́ː-kû] (also spelled on Ethnologue as Seeku) literally means ‘thing of the Sɛ̃ː ethnicity’, but it is widely known to outsiders as Sembla (variant spelling Sambla), which doubles as an exonym for the ethnicity. Seenku has two primary dialects, Northern and Southern, spoken in villages approximately 40 km west of Bobo-Dioulasso in Burkina Faso (see map in Figure 1). This study focuses on the more populous southern dialect, particularly the variety spoken in and around the large village center of Bouendé (local name [ɡ͡béné-ɡũ]), with a population of approximately 12,000 speakers; the Northern dialect, spoken around the village center of Karangasso (local name [təmî]), has a population of approximately 5000 speakers and was the subject of a sketch grammar (Prost 1971). The southern dialect had until recently received little scholarly attention, with the exception of a Master's thesis on the morphophonology at the Université de Ouagadougou (Congo 2013), but is now the subject of the NSF Documenting Endangered Languages grant supporting this research (BCS-1664335). Other published work includes McPherson (2017a, b, c, d). 

   more » « less