It seems odd to me that the species status (extinct or extant) is mixed in with the taxon status of valid or invalid. Maybe we should have a separate field for whether it's extinct or not.
_Originally posted by @sharpphyl in https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2592#issuecomment-614704357_
Jegelewicz
All 18 comments
And Happy Birthday to Teresa!
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:13 AM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer <
[email protected]> wrote:
It seems odd to me that the species status (extinct or extant) is mixed in
with the taxon status of valid or invalid. Maybe we should have a separate
field for whether it's extinct or not.Originally posted by @sharpphyl https://github.com/sharpphyl in #2592
(comment)
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2592#issuecomment-614704357—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2594, or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABOHKEV4AFPH3LNFRK4HGDDRM4OA5ANCNFSM4MJZAATQ
.
tucojoe
on 16 Apr 2020
Awww thanks! Not quite extinct!
Jegelewicz
on 16 Apr 2020
You are very, very extant. Happy Birthday!
sharpphyl
on 16 Apr 2020
Happy Birthday!!! 🎊
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:30 AM Phyllis Sharp notifications@github.com
wrote:
You are very, very extant. Happy Birthday!
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2594#issuecomment-614790143,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJKSRR7K6VN5GSGBYO3GM2DRM46DBANCNFSM4MJZAATQ
.>
Sent from Gmail Mobile
marecaguthrie
on 16 Apr 2020
"Species status" suggested by @sharpphyl for a new table for these terms.
"Conservation status" suggested by @campmlc plus adding CITES stuff (direct from CITES).
@aklompma notes that extinct isn't really a conservation status for stuff from the Jurassic. - Use Species status and still bring in CITES stuff - preferred by the committee.
Jegelewicz
on 18 Nov 2020
@dustymc @campmlc asked if it would be possible to add conservation status from CITES to the taxon page? Could that be mashed together with extinct/extant somehow (sometimes that is in CITES, but not for really old extinct stuff...)
Jegelewicz
on 18 Nov 2020
I'm not a fan of "species" - it could apply to other groups, which has no technical implications but could be confusing.
add conservation status from CITES to the taxon page?
It's there?? http://test.arctos.database.museum/name/Canis%20lupus#ArctosLegal
dustymc
on 19 Nov 2020
It's there?? http://test.arctos.database.museum/name/Canis%20lupus#ArctosLegal
I know that and you know that, but joe-researcher doesn't know that. It would be really nice if those CITES Annotations and Appendixes could appear up top under a header of "taxon conservation status" (better than "species?).
Jegelewicz
on 19 Nov 2020
appear up top
Clarify please.
If you mean at the top of /name/... then the data can't support that - cites applies to the mammal, not the dinosaur or tree that share the name (and in Arctos, the page).
If you mean at the top of the classification (which comes from cites and presumably is critical in understanding what's being discussed) then it already is.
??????????
taxon conservation status
Yes much better.
dustymc
on 19 Nov 2020
If you mean at the top of /name/... then the data can't support that - cites applies to the mammal, not the dinosaur or tree that share the name (and in Arctos, the page).
Yeah that's what I meant and yeah I see your point. Maybe we could change "Arctos Legal" to "Arctos Taxon Status"? or at least can we force this to the top of the classification list to make it more prominent?
Jegelewicz
on 19 Nov 2020
Can we display terms from Arctos legal with classification terms in Arctos?
Most people do not know to scroll down and look at all classification
sources. This could just be a display issue.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 8:46 AM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
appear up top
Clarify please.
If you mean at the top of /name/... then the data can't support that -
cites applies to the mammal, not the dinosaur or tree that share the name
(and in Arctos, the page).If you mean at the top of the classification (which comes from cites and
presumably is critical in understanding what's being discussed) then it
already is.??????????
taxon conservation status
Yes much better.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2594#issuecomment-730462168,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBHES3MOL74LN3PUMVDSQU4UHANCNFSM4MJZAATQ
.
campmlc
on 19 Nov 2020
force this to the top of the classification list to make it more prominent?
The techy answer is "yes" but I think most users don't care about that stuff, and I'm always hesitant to make things more confusing (eg, out of alpha order) to somehow placate a tiny (entirely theoretical?) percentage of users. More work, more processors required, less usability - not ideal.
Can we display terms from Arctos legal with classification terms in Arctos?
I have absolutely no way of knowing if those things are aiming at the same taxon concept (or whatever they're aiming at). Maybe I'd get lucky sometimes, but I think for the most part this would just be wrong and misleading.
I am hesitant to get anywhere near the dumpster fire that is the Arctos classification. Why would we add more to the thing that demonstrably can't do the one thing it exists to do, even if we could?!?
Most people do not know to scroll down
Do you have evidence of this?
dustymc
on 19 Nov 2020
Even if they do scroll down - it really isn't super clear that "Arctos Legal" is where we are storing conservation status.
Jegelewicz
on 19 Nov 2020
Yes, agree.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:37 AM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer <
[email protected]> wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
Even if they do scroll down - it really isn't super clear that "Arctos
Legal" is where we are storing conservation status.—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2594#issuecomment-730493660,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBGNHM65XSFGATNEBITSQVCSTANCNFSM4MJZAATQ
.
campmlc
on 19 Nov 2020
where we are storing conservation status.
I think it's more complicated than that. It's "where we're storing whatever I find in species+, and maybe eventually some other similar resources." Whether that's conservation status or not, and whether you need to care at the moment or not, depends on lots of things - are we talking about the same concept, does this particular rule apply to this particular situation, when was this collected/imported/etc etc bla bla bla. It's complicated.
CITES is pretty explicitly not "conservation status" - eg they list species that can be confused with species that have conservation concerns, etc etc.
I suppose "extinct" could be conservation status, but as mentioned above nobody cares for pliosaurs - best case, this seems like a good way to mix up the data in such a way that it can't do anything.
What exactly are the goals of this?
dustymc
on 19 Nov 2020
Goals are to make this information readily accessible and visible to folks
who are managing taxonomy and choosing names. Right now the info is
scattered, and people have to know to look and know where to look, and that
is not happening.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:50 AM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:
- [EXTERNAL]*
where we are storing conservation status.
I think it's more complicated than that. It's "where we're storing
whatever I find in species+, and maybe eventually some other similar
resources." Whether that's conservation status or not, and whether you need
to care at the moment or not, depends on lots of things - are we talking
about the same concept, does this particular rule apply to this particular
situation, when was this collected/imported/etc etc bla bla bla. It's
complicated.CITES is pretty explicitly not "conservation status" - eg they list
species that can be confused with species that have conservation concerns,
etc etc.I suppose "extinct" could be conservation status, but as mentioned above
nobody cares for pliosaurs - best case, this seems like a good way to mix
up the data in such a way that it can't do anything.What exactly are the goals of this?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2594#issuecomment-730501545,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBGT4ZU7YL57GTPACY3SQVEEVANCNFSM4MJZAATQ
.
campmlc
on 19 Nov 2020
Let's think about it from an educational standpoint. If a teacher asked students to find all of the occurrences of extinct or endangered taxa in New Mexico, how would they try to do that? While we may never actually get a completely correct answer to that question, right now I am not sure that a person could even query for that in Arctos.
Jegelewicz
on 19 Nov 2020
Closing as duplicate of #2926
Jegelewicz
on 18 May 2021
Related issues
ccicero
·
8Comments
alexkrohn
·
3Comments
ebraker
·
8Comments
dustymc
·
3Comments
dustymc
·
4Comments
Most helpful comment
You are very, very extant. Happy Birthday!