University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

![Goet008353](http://lh6.ggpht.com/-SqCFT317KsY/USYK37wEBaI/AAAAAAAACds/03qIna4dzAI/goet008353.jpg?imgmax=800 "goet008353.jpg"){border="0"
width="137" height="200" style="float:right;"}Somehow I get the feeling
that botanists haven\'t got the \"open data\" religion. Not only is the
list of plant names list [behind a really bad
license](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2010/12/plant-list-nice-data-shame-it-not-open.html),
but the [Global Plants Initiative (GPI)](http://gpi.myspecies.info/)
hides its type images behind a JSTOR Plant Sciences paywall. Why is
botany determined to keep its data under wraps?  
  
For example, the first specimen on the JSTOR site is the [GOET008353,
the isotype of *Aa achalensis*
Schltr.](http://plants.jstor.org/specimen/goet008353). You can see a
thumbnail of the specimen (shown on the right), but if you want the full
image you need to have a subscription, otherwise you see this message:  
  

> The resource you are attempting to access is part of JSTOR Plant
> Science. JSTOR Plant Science is currently being offered free of charge
> for all JSTOR participants and not for profit institutions. To learn
> more about JSTOR Plant Science, please contact plants@jstor.org.

  
  
So, without a subscription you don\'t get to see this in high resolution
(the JSTOR site features a higher resolution image and associated
viewer):  
  
![Resolver](http://lh6.ggpht.com/-wm5FI8buKnk/USYK2inNMdI/AAAAAAAACdk/5U6MWq7tP_A/resolver.jpg?imgmax=800 "resolver.jpg"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="409" height="600"}  
  
Why would herbariums hand over this imagery? I [complained about this on
Facebook](http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage/posts/10200339079135576) and
Chuck Miller responded that the original herbaria retain control over
the images, so they aren\'t locked away. However, I then when to the
herbarium that has this specimen (the [Type Database of Herbarium
Göttingen (GOET)](http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/186917.html) and
search for this specimen I eventually find it listed as
[4966](https://gwdu64.gwdg.de/pls/herbar/typen$typen.QueryViewByKey?P_ID=4966&Z_CHK=7130).
There is no image!  
  
So, the only place I can see this image is on JSTOR, for which I need a
subscription. I\'m also puzzled by the fact that JSTOR refers to this as
\"GOET008353\", whereas the original herbarium refers to it as \"4966\".
GBIF also has this specimen, which it refers to as [GOET GOET-Typen
4966](http://data.gbif.org/occurrences/736142455). The GOET008353 is a
barcode given to types as part of the GPI digitisation programme.
Unfortunately, neither the originating herbarium nor GBIF seems to know
about this.  
  
In summary, we have three databases with data on this specimen, each
with a different specimen identifier, none of which link to each other,
and the available imagery is behind a paywall.  
  
Clearly botany hasn\'t gotten the memo about open data\...


Somehow I get the feeling that botanists haven't got the "open data" religion. Not only is the list of plant names list behind a really bad license, but the Global Plants Initiative (GPI) hides its type images behind a JSTOR Plant Sciences paywall. Why is botany determined to keep its data under wraps?

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Why are botanists locking away their data in JSTOR Plant Science?