Usually i get confused when i search in the KEW'S PLANT LIST. I feel that it contains a lot of mistakes AND ESPECIALLY IN THE ACCEPTED NAME AND THE SYNONYMS.
In that case you can very well take care for correcting the mistakes.
Taxonomy is a tricky affair. You cannot say plant list at Kew is full of mistakes. I hope the problem is because of changes happening in taxonomy and nomenclature. Sometimes, a species is dropped from a particular family and put in another one. Sometimes, a species is dropped from a genus and accommodated in another genus or even a new genus is created. Species names are also changed paving the ways for synonyms. You should always be aware of these developments!
I am always aware of the international developments and i totally agree with what you have said C George Thomas, but i am not talking about these things that you mentioned. I am talking about their synonyms. I don't accept a lot of their considerations for some species as NOT ACCEPTED when indeed in our field work it is CLEEEEEAR THAT THEIR ARE HUGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM.
There is no such thing as "the KEW'S PLANT LIST".
Kew published WCSP (updated daily):
https://wcsp.science.kew.org
and POWO (updated weekly):
http://plantsoftheworldonline.org
In the past Kew also provided data for international programmes run independantly of Kew like CoL (www.catalogueoflife.org), TROPICOS (www.tropicos.org) and TPL (http://www.theplantlist.org/), this last one has not been updated since 2013. As these are indipendant, Kew has no control over how often these are updated or what these organisations do with their data. So please be accurate on the databases you use so as not to confuse readers.
This is your opinion and I have mine and I am not confusing the readers. The matter is that there is a difference between gathering a data only, and working at the field and fixing mistakes for those who only gather the information. I think i have cleared my point of view, and by the way, I am not the only one who is complaining ............... Rafaël Herman Anna Govaerte
That there is no "the KEW'S PLANT LIST" is fact, not an opinion.
If you see errors on WCSP or POWO you can email me and I will fix them so they improve over time.
Any mistakes on other databases has nothing to do with Kew (even if you randomly put "KEW" in the title) and you need to contact the relevant editors.
Don't complain but contribute as thousands have done and it will benefit everyone.
Thanks.
Probably you are telling about The Plant List. Yes it has errors in the accepted names and synonyms. Actually it is a very difficult task to always provide the current accepted names when many are frequently changing. Accepted names may also vary upon onces taxonomic concept.
To me The Plant List is useful, at least it gives a clue about the various names of a species.
The Plant List has limitations. They have mentioned in their own website
http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about/#limitations
Yes there are many problems in synonyms, unresolved and accepted names in The Plant List.
Case 1. Inula cappa (Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don) DC. is an unresolved name in the plant list with Conyza cappa Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don as basionym.
Case 2. Duhaldea cappa (Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don) Pruski & Anderb. is an unresolved name with Conyza cappa Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don as basionym.
It is not possible that there is 2 plants with common basionym. Now Inula cappa (Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don) DC. is synonym of Duhaldea cappa (Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don) Pruski & Anderb. in plant of the world online.
I have now switched over to POWO. In spite of limitations, this is the best website for initial enquiry.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Data Mining
- Classification