User:Rdmpage/Referencing taxon names
How to reference taxonomic names edit
Ideally for each taxon (Q16521) the value for taxon name (P225) should have one or more references that provide evidence for that name (as we aim to do for any statement in Wikidata). For example, if the name occurs in a well known taxonomic database (e.g., Integrated Taxonomic Information System (Q82575), Avibase (Q20749148), International Plant Names Index (Q922063)) then a simple reference is that database. But these databases can be thought of as secondary sources. Primary sources come from the taxonomic literature, that is, articles, chapters, books, etc. that publish new taxonomic names, change existing names (e.g., correct the spelling), establish relationships between names (e.g., synonymy), and interpret what set of organisms belong in the taxon that carries that taxonomic name. Here we suggest ways to provide references for taxon name (P225).
Suggested ways to reference taxon taxon name (P225) edit
Where possible primary sources should used as references. Even better, we can add qualifiers to the references that say how the reference relates to the taxon name (P225). For example, is the reference where the name was first published, such as the description of a new species, or a name for a newly recognised higher taxon?
| Referencing first publication of taxon name (e.g., "sp. nov.") |
|---|
| If you add a reference to the first time a name was published please consider adding the qualifier first valid description (Q1361864) |
Taxonomy is constantly changing with new classifications being proposed, and the convention at the species level is to keep species names in alignment with a given classification. For example, if a classification moves a species from one genus to another, the species name will change to use the new genus. Because of the convention in Wikidata that each taxon (Q16521) has a single value for taxon name (P225) (i.e., each taxon name is a taxon) this new combination of genus and species name will need a new Wikidata item.
| Referencing publication of a new combination (e.g., "comb. nov.") |
|---|
| For a Wikidata item that represents a species that was originally published in a different genus, please consider adding the qualifier recombination (Q14594740). This tells us that this reference is the first time this name has been published, but that it is based on an previously published name. You can link the Wikidata items for the two taxa together using the property taxon synonym (P1420) |
Sometimes taxonomists have to alter a name, for example to correct the spelling emendation (Q1335348), change the type specimen (e.g., lectotypification (Q61458071)), or a name may be ruled invalid under one of the codes of nomenclature. These are all acts of nomenclature.
| Referencing act of nomenclature |
|---|
| If you add a reference that does something to a name, such as emendation (Q1335348) or lectotypification (Q61458071), then consider adding the specific act as a qualifier, or the more general nomenclatural act (Q56027914) if you are unsure which one to use. Note that these qualifiers are best used only if you feel confident that you understand the relevant rules of nomenclature. |
The original publication of a name is important for nomenclature, but might not be a useful sources of information about the taxon, or might be seriously out of date. If there are more recent publications that discuss the taxonomy of a species (for example a taxonomic revision, a regional flora, etc.) then those too can be added as references.
| Referencing taxonomic work (e.g., species made a synonym of other species, identification keys, redescriptions) |
|---|
| NEED TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO HERE. QUALIFIER OF REFERENCE, e.g. taxonomic treatment (Q32945461) OR SEPARATE PROPERTY either existing or proposed, e.g., Wikidata:Property_proposal/taxonomic_treatment? |
These qualifiers are not the only ones possible, but we suggest that they capture the core facts that people will need to be able to locate the evidence for a taxonomic name, and also support queries such as "what are the new species reported in this paper?" and "how many species has this person described?".
Qualifiers for taxon name (P225) edit
There are other qualifiers that have sometimes been used as qualifiers of references for taxon name (P225), such as nomen invalidum (Q30349290) and replacement name (Q749462). These are better thought of as qualifiers for the taxon name (P225) itself and should not be used as qualifiers for references.
Summary edit
If you add primary sources as references for taxonomic names, please consider using one of the qualifiers listed above: first valid description (Q1361864) if this is a new species or other new taxon, and recombination (Q14594740) if it is a new name for a species that was already discovered and named. If the publication deals with the finer points of nomenclature, then use nomenclatural act (Q56027914) or a related qualifier. If you are unable to decide which qualifier is appropriate, don't let that stop you from adding the reference. There is likely to be someone in the Wikidata community who can help.
If the reference is about the classification of the taxon, or its circumscription (what's included in the taxon and what isn't) then please use WHATEVER WE DECIDED ABOVE.
What we need to do now edit
- Decide what to do about publications that are taxonomic revisions/treatments (whatever term people prefer). I think there is merit in resolving this because Plazi (Q7203726) is generating large numbers of these and is keen to link them to Wikidata taxa. If the consensus is that taxonomy should be kept out of references for names then we need to agree on a property of taxon (Q16521) for treatments. Personally I'd lean towards qualifier of reference, but can see the case for a separate property. We just need a decision one way or the other.
- If we settle on first valid description (Q1361864) as the qualifier for the original publication of a name note that both the name and the description is currently inconsistent with the goal of the qualifier. The English language description says "first description of a taxon; often precedes the name-giving" which I take to mean first valid description (Q1361864) is the first time somebody said "this thing looks like a new species" rather than "this IS a new species and I call it xxx". This is why I prefer original publication (Q55155646) because publication is the key, not simply description. Can I suggest we consider merging first valid description (Q1361864) and original publication (Q55155646) and make it explicit that this is the first publication, that is, the name becomes available in the sense of nomenclature.
- Put the suggestions forward for the community to comment on
- If people are happy to move forward then:
- Merge, delete, or otherwise clean up any stray properties/qualifiers left over (or maybe leave them as orphans in case people decide that they do have a use in the future).
- Do a bulk upload (i.e., potentially tens or hundreds of thousands) of references using the agreed qualifiers. I would be able to provide data for this.
Proposal edit
After some discussion with @Totodu74: @Succu: @Ambrosia10: @Christian Ferrer: about how to improve referencing of taxonomic names on Wikidata (this was done on my talk page), we'd like to propose the following set of guidelines for when we edit taxa. Most of this has been implicit in what a number of people have been doing, but we think it can be tidied up a little.
- Where possible every taxon name (P225) should have at least one reference to a source for that name (ideally this should be the case for any Wikidata statement). These references could be external databases, but ideally would also include scientific publications (which themselves have been added to Wikidata).
- If the reference is the publication that first described the taxon (e.g., the publication includes phrases such as "sp. nov.", "gen. nov.", etc.) then we can add the qualifier reference has role (P6184) with the value first valid description (Q1361864) to the reference. This should only be used for the first time a name has been published. We recommend that the property P5326 (P5326) not be used.
- If taxon name (P225) is a "new combination", for example, a species moved from one genus to another resulting in a new name, then for the reference that moved the species (e.g., the publication will include phrases such as "comb.nov") we can use the qualifier reference has role (P6184) with the value recombination (Q14594740). We also encourage editors to connect the Wikidata item being edited to the item that has the original taxonomic name using either basionym (P566) (botanical names) or original combination (P1403) (zoological names). This way we can trace the name changes and help keep track of synonyms.
- The taxon name (P225) being edited might be the result of a nomenclatural change, such as changing the spelling, it is a replacement name for a homonym (Q902085), etc. For these names we can use reference has role (P6184) with the value nomenclatural act (Q56027914). More precise terms can be used, e.g. replacement of junior homonym (Q108040629) if the reasons for the name change are known. If using replacement of junior homonym (Q108040629), we encourage the Wikidata item to be linked to the homonym being replaced using replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694).
- If the reference doesn't change the name of the taxon, but is otherwise taxonomically significant (e.g., it is a taxonomic revision, redescription, or treatment) then if the reference is a publication we could use one of revision (Q2146881), taxon redescription (Q42696902), or taxonomic treatment (Q32945461) as the value for {{P|6184} . If the reference is a itself a taxonomic treatment (Q32945461) (for example it corresponds to a Plazi (Q7203726) treatment) then there is no need to use the qualifier.
I'm hoping that these guidelines are clear, although looking at them there seems to be more text that I'd hoped. However, the key message is to add references for taxonomic names, and where possible to use reference has role (P6184) paired with one of the qualifiers discussed so that anyone looking at a taxon name (P225) can see the source of the name and/or know where to look for more details. Having some clarity and consensus on how to reference names will hopefully make it easier to add these references, whether it is single edits, or bulk uploads of data.