--- Gerard Meijssen gerardm@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 Wikipedia articles.
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 public domain, 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 small resources.
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 name).
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.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail