Talk:Integrated Taxonomic Information System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: please consider reviewing this talk page's history. I attempted to clean it up by signing unsigned comments and formatting the page, but I feel the page is still confusing and possibly misleading. I refrained from editing where I thought I might add to the confusion. --Iamunknown 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

An unnamed user had removed some cautionary material about the non-absoluteness of results obtained from ITIS. I have reinstated it and expanded it (much of it comes from ITIS's own website) - ITIS is by no means to be regarded as the final word on taxonomy, and much of its material is seriously out of date, not surprisingly given the rate at which molecular genetics is causing taxonomy to be rewritten. seglea 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed but knowledgeable

Note: unnamed is a reference to seglea's first post noting "An unnamed user [removing] some cautionary material..."

Far be it for anyone to trod on your comments. These are your opinions and ones not necessarily held by others. Yes, it is true that taxonomy is in flux and yes there are errors in the ITIS database. However, it is up to the user to determine what is regarded as the final word. ITIS does not “propose to be the final word”. It is a working database of taxonomic information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmotommyo (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly so, and for just this reason I have put the material back in, because it is a matter of fact and not of opinion - and those of us working on the taxonomic component of Wikipedia have had problems in the past with people not realising that you can't absolutely rely on sources like ITIS.

To clarify, here is the material that has been popping in and out:

• "Biological taxonomy is not fixed, and opinions about the correct status of taxa at all levels, and their correct placement, are constantly revised as a result of new research." That is not an opinion, it is a historical fact; see the history of the taxonomy of any group you care to choose.
• "Many aspects of classification will always remain a matter of scientific judgement." That is a judgement, but it is one that can safely be made, since all it does is assume that the future of taxonomy will be somewhat like its past.
• "The ITIS database is updated to take account of new research as it becomes available" A fact, and easily established as one by consulting the ITIS web pages
• "...and the information it yields is likely to represent a fair consensus of modern taxonomic opinion" A judgement, and not one that all Wikipedians share (some editors feel that ITIS tends to be very out of date; for example unless it has changed recently it doesn't always reflect the widely supported conclusions of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group for the flowering plants); but it represents my assessment of the many cases in which I have compared ITIS's information with other sources including the primary literature.
• "Inevitably, however, its information cannot be final." The logical consequence of the above.
• "Records within ITIS include information about how far it has been possible to check and verify them". A fact, and one of ITIS's strengths.
• "Its information should be checked against other sources where these are available, and against the primary research scientific literature where possible." A recommendation that any working scientist would make about any active research area.

I am sorry to belabour these points, and I am not trying to devalue ITIS - I am reasonably sure that anyone who works within it would take the same view as I do. There is a general problem that lay people regard taxonomy as much more fixed and absolute than it is, and in introducing sources of apparently diamond-hard data, we do need to point out how they are likely to be flawed.

seglea 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed

Note: unnamed is a reference to seglea's first post noting "An unnamed user [removing] some cautionary material..."

As of Dec. 2005 there are over 500,000 names in ITIS (404,479 scientific - all ranks, 96,097 vanaculars). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok with that. I had misread the syntax and hadn't realised that the 500k included the vernacular. seglea 20:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

None
OK. We can agree to leave your statement in MINUS the following which is missleading to the intent of ITIS. "Inevitably, however, its information cannot be final" . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.6.87 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Currently "itis" redirects here but it can, obviously, refer to the medical suffix. Can someone remove the redirect because I don't know how? I've already written a disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theredfandango (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It also refers to passing out after eating, and an episode of The Boondocks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.61.51.153 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a link to the disambig page at the top of this page, since I think the commonest link to ITIS by far will be to this page. (there's a clever way of doing this with a template, but I've forgotten what it is.) Fyi, if you want to get back to the redirect, all you have to do is click on the "redirected from ITIS" link that appears at the top of the page when you come here via it. seglea