More fictional taxa and the myth of the expert taxonomic database

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but the more I look, the more taxonomic databases seem to be full of garbage. Databases such as the Catalogue of life, which states that it is a "quality-assured checklist" have records that are patently wrong. Here's yet another example.

If you search for the genus Raymondia in the Catalogue of Life you get multiple occurrences of the same species names, e.g.:

• Raymondionymus fossor Ganglebauer, L., 1906
• Raymondionymus fossor Hustache, A., 1930

Both of these are listed as "provisionally accepted names", supplied by WTaxa: Electronic Catalogue of Weevil names (Curculionoidea). Clearly we can't have two species with the same name, so what's happening?

Firstly, Hustache, A., 1930 is:

Hustache A (1930) Curculionidae Gallo-Rhénans. Annales de la Société entomologique de France 99: 81-272. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6112240j/f3

On p. 246 Hustache refers to Raymondionymus fossor Aubé, 1864 (see below).



So, Raymondionymus fossor Hustache, A., 1930 is not a new species but simply the citation of a previously published one (it's a chresonym). Hustache cites the author of the name as Aubé, 1864, and you can see the original description by Aubé in BioStor (Description de six espèces nouvelles de Coléoptères d'Europe dont deux appartenant a deux genres nouveaux et aveugles, http://biostor.org/reference/104589). So, if the taxonomic authority should be Aubé, 1864, what about Raymondionymus fossor Ganglebauer, L., 1906? Again, if we track down the original publication (Revision der Blindrüsslergattungen Alaocyba und Raymondionymus, http://biostor.org/reference/104591) it's simply Ganglebauer citing (on p. 142) Aubé's paper, not describing a new species.

Note that the nomenclature of this weevil species is further complicated because Aubé originally described the species as Raymondia fossor, but Raymondia was already in use for a fly (see Über eine neue Fliegengattung: Raymondia, aus der Familie der Coriaceen, nebst Beschreibung zweier Arten derselben, http://biostor.org/reference/104588). To resolve this homonymy Wollaston proposed the name Raymondionymus:

Wollaston, T. V. (1873). XVIII. On the Genera of the Cossonidae. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 21(4), 427–652. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.1873.tb00645.xhttp://biostor.org/reference/51301

So, we have a bit of a mess. Unfortunately this mess percolates up through other databases, for example EOL has three different pages for Raymondionymus fossor.

For me the lesson here is that relying on acquiring data from "trusted" sources, curated by "experts" is simply not a tenable strategy for building lists of taxa. If names are essential bits of biodiversity infrastructure upon which we hang other data, then these lists need to be cleaned, which means exposing them to scrutiny, and providing an easy means for errors to be flagged and corrected. Trust is something that is earned, not asserted, and it's time taxonomic databases stop claiming to be authoritative simply because they rely on expert sources. Expertise is no guarantee that you won't make errors.

For me this is one of the key reasons projects like BHL are so important. As more and more of the original literature becomes available, we lessen our reliance on "expertise". We can start to see for ourselves. In other words, "Nullius in verba" ("take nobody's word for it").

Fictional taxa

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 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 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 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). 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:



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.