--- Gerard Meijssen <gerardm(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
What is this overlap? Given that ToL only covers the
most recent names
and loads of names have been validly published and still have relevance,
No we do not. We give the scientific names and also alternate names as well,
including old and no longer used ones. All that info can and should be in
I fail to see where the overlap is. You presume that
little is known
about many species, when there is traction among the serious amateurs
and the professionals, you will be amazed how much is known about things
on a species, subspecies, variety and forma level.
Then put that info in Wikipedia. Done.
The scientific descriptions of taxons are inherently
there is no single resource that collects them.
Why can't Wikipedia play that role? Oh wait, we are trying to that already.
I know of a Yahoo group
that has some descriptions on line for cacti. There are more of these
I know of an online encyclopedia that is working on doing this for every taxa
both extant and extinct. Maybe you have heard of it (hint: it has a funny
By having an open place where these things can be
posted with some assurance that they will remain there, you already have
something that adds value beyond the current ToL and gives validation to
the idea of a Wikispecies.
And the wiki process does not do that? You are working from a false assumption
that good info is somehow lost in Wikpedia.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!