University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

Anyone who works with taxonomic databases is aware of the fact that they
have errors. Some taxonomic databases are restricted in scope to a
particular taxon in which one or more people have expertise, these then
get aggregated into larger databases, which may in turn be aggregated by
databases whose scope is global. One consequence of this is that errors
in one database can be propagated through many other databases.  
  
As an example (for reasons I can\'t remember), I came across the name
\"Panisopus\" (in the water mote family Thyasidae) but was struggling to
find any mention of the taxonomic literature associated with this name.
If you [Google Panisopus](http://www.google.com/search?q=Panisopus) the
first two pages are full of search results from ITIS, EOL, GBIF,
ZipCodeZoo, all listing several species in the genus, and sometimes
taxonomic authorities, but no links to the primary literature. If you
search [BHL for
Panisopus](http://biodiversitylibrary.org/search.aspx?searchTerm=Panisopus)
you get nothing, nothing at all. It\'s as if the name didn\'t exist.  
  
Turns out, that\'s exactly the point. The name doesn\'t exist, other
than in the various databases that have consumed other databases and
recycled this fictional taxon. After some Googling of author\'s names it
became clear that \"Panisopus\" is probably a misspelling of
\"Panisopsis\", which [according to
ION](http://www.organismnames.com/details.htm?lsid=3375532) was
published in:  
  
Viets, K. (1926) Eine nomenklatorische Aenderung im Hydracarinen-Genus
Thyas C. L. Koch. Zool Anz Leipzig, 66: 145\--148  
  
I can\'t verify this because this article is not available online. But
to give one example, ITIS lists the name \"Panisopus pedunculata
Keonike, 1895\" ([TSN
83185](http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=83185)).
This name should be, as far as I can tell, *Panisopsis pedunculata*
(Koenike, 1895), based on Mitchell, 1954
(<http://biostor.org/reference/104266>,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.3110>) who on page 36 states:  
  
![Mitchell](http://lh5.ggpht.com/-P_-xeWpcVLs/T98gqUrkx6I/AAAAAAAABbQ/72DEA8ScyEg/mitchell.png?imgmax=800 "mitchell.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="550" height="115"}  
  
Note that *Panisopsis pedunculata* was originally described in a
different genus (Koenike 1895 preceeds the publication of the genus name
by Viets in 1926). We can locate Koenike\'s original publication
\"Nordamerikanische Hydrachniden\" in BHL, which I\'ve added to BioStor
<http://biostor.org/reference/104265>, and the original description
appears on p. 192 as *Thyas pedunculata* (note that ITIS misspells the
author\'s name Koenike \[o and e transposed\], as well as omitting the
parentheses around the name).  
  
What I find a little alarming (if not surprising) is that the entirely
fictional genus \"Panisopus\" its accompanying species have ended up in
numerous taxonomic databases, and these databases consistently appear in
the top Google searches for this name. The good news is that it\'s
becoming increasingly easy to discover these errors, in part because
more and more taxonomic literature is coming online, making it possible
for users to investigate matters for themselves, rather than rely on
unsupported statements in taxonomic databases. I\'m continually amazed
by how little evidence most taxonomic databases provide for any of the
assertions that they make. If a database includes a name, I want some
evidence that the name is \"real\". Show me the publication, or at least
give me a citation that I can follow up. I can\'t take these databases
on blind faith, because demonstrably they are replete with errors.
Ironically, one measure of success in the Internet age is being in the
top 10 hits for a Google search. Now, if the top ten hits are all
taxonomic databases I get very, very nervous. It\'s a good sign the name
only exists in those databases.  


Anyone who works with taxonomic databases is aware of the fact that they have errors. Some taxonomic databases are restricted in scope to a particular taxon in which one or more people have expertise, these then get aggregated into larger databases, which may in turn be aggregated by databases whose scope is global.

Messages de Rogue Scholar

Fictional taxa