Project

General

Profile

Actions

feature request #461

open

Improve / compact display of types

Added by Andreas Kohlbecker about 13 years ago. Updated 2 months ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Priority13
Category:
cdm-dataportal
Target version:
Start date:
12/15/2008
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Severity:
normal

Description

The display of types in the dataportal is redundant and should be more compact. A general solution should be flexible enough in order to respect different needs.

From 3.2.2009 to 5.2.2009 different type formating rules have been discussed by email. This conversation is reproduced below using trac ticket comments.


Files

Typi-Format-FloreAfriqueCentral.doc (26 KB) Typi-Format-FloreAfriqueCentral.doc Andreas Kohlbecker, 01/09/2014 03:22 PM
Halopertisreekmansii.png (189 KB) Halopertisreekmansii.png Andreas Kohlbecker, 01/09/2014 03:42 PM

Related issues

Related to Edit - feature request #6314: CDM light (csv) export implementedClosedKatja Luther03/23/2017

Actions
Related to Edit - feature request #6413: [DISCUSS] How to create type duplicates (e.g. isotypes) for a taxon nameClosedPatrick Plitzner02/08/2017

Actions
Related to Edit - bug #6526: Show types in correct orderClosedPatrick Plitzner03/20/2017

Actions
Related to Edit - feature request #6718: Constistent TypeDesignation representation creation DuplicateAndreas Müller06/12/2017

Actions
Related to Edit - feature request #7696: use compact type representations in the synonymy as provided by the typedesignations/byTaxon/{taxon_uuid} serviceNewAndreas Kohlbecker08/29/2018

Actions
Related to Edit - feature request #2506: (Type-) Specimens may need statusIn ProgressAndreas Müller07/25/2011

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker about 13 years ago

  • Priority changed from New to New
Actions #2

Updated by Andreas Müller about 13 years ago

  • Tracker deleted (task)
Actions #3

Updated by Andreas Müller about 13 years ago

  • Severity set to trivial
Actions #4

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

removing the DISCUSS note from the title since a consensus on a solution has been found by mail.

Actions #5

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

  • Subject changed from Impove / compact display of types [DISCUSS] to Impove / compact display of types
Actions #6

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

  • Tracker changed from bug to feature request

et al:

we prefer the following version of type display, i.e.

Holotype: Papua New Guinea, Gulf, Kikori District, Victory Junction, confluence of Sirebi and Kuru Rivers, 34 km north of Kikori (S 7° 7’ 25.9”, E 144° 19’ 30.2”), Nov. 2000 Baker et al. 1097(K!; isotypes: AAU!, LAE!, NY!)

or if there is only one isotype:

Holotype: Papua New Guinea, Gulf, Kikori District, Victory Junction, confluence of Sirebi and Kuru Rivers, 34 km north of Kikori (S 7° 7’ 25.9”, E 144° 19’ 30.2”), Nov. 2000 Baker et al. 1097(K!; isotype: AAU!) 

In the case of isotypes of lecto-, neo- or syntypes the following:

Lectotype: Papua New Guinea, ... (K!; isolectotypes: AAU!, LAE!, NY!)  

Neotype: Papua New Guinea, ... (K!; isoneotypes: AAU!, LAE!, NY!)  

Syntype: Papua New Guinea, Gulf AB (K)
Syntype: Papua New Guinea, Gulf ABC (K; isosyntypes B, L, LE)

As soon as we have a lectotypification all other data on types (in most cases syntypes) are eliminated. We do not cite paratypes; information on them is available via the protologue.

Actions #7

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

[Soraya]:

In principle the format outlined below (by Ralf et al) is good, but I am not sure about eliminating previous type data once a lectotype is selected. Even if a reference is given to the lectotypication, some people might want to have the original information. It seems then that the format should allow the flexibility to include "extras" like a reference and/or notes about the type, right? For example:

Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).
Holotype: Borneo, S Kalimantan, Sg. Dusun, Korthals & Muller s.n. (L; isotype: fragment FI).
Lectotype: Madagascar, Ile Sainte marie, Tafondru forest, March 1847 Boivin (P, indicated in Palms of Madagascar 1995, etc etc)
Actions #8

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).
[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

Actions #9

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).

[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

[Ralf]:

to add such comments like "presumed destroyed", questions-marks, exclamation-marks etc. are no problem at all. There is already a certain "biodiversity" in our database. And we should allow as much freedom as possible.

Actions #10

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

[Irina]:

some entomologists cite the date and the collector for type data, others (including me) don't. I would only do this in the materials section. We always cite the sex of the specimen and there also needs to be an option to add the stage (adult, puparium) or other zoologist might need to add whether they have bones, shells, feathers or whatever. I have to check where that information would go.

I don't know why you have the '!' after the acronyms and what the number after 'Baker et al.' means.

Do we need to define how the locality, date, collector, etc. should be formated or will this just depend on what was imported?

Actions #11

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

[Irina] continued ...:

I would use one of these options:

1) Holotype: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([sex] [depository], [ID number])
2) Holotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([depository], [ID number])
3) Type: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] (HT [sex] [depository], [ID number])

for lectotypes (and neotypes):

4) Lectotype: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([sex] [depository], [ID number])
5) Lectotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([depository], [ID number])
6) Type: [locality], [collecting date], [collector] (LT [[designated by Author Year]] [sex] [depository], [ID number])

for syntypes:

7) Syntype(s): [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([number][sex] [depository], [ID number]); [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([number][sex] [depository], [ID number]).
8) Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], [collector] (ST [number][sex] [depository], [ID number]); [locality], [collecting date], [collector] (ST [number][sex] [depository], [ID number]). 

I prefer the following:

Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([kind of type] [[designated by Author Year]] [sex] [depository], [ID number]); [repeat for syntypes].

[depository] includes information like type lost.

Actions #12

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Irina] continued ...:

I would use one of these options:

1) Holotype: [locality], [collecting date], collector

2) Holotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], collector

3) Type: [locality], [collecting date], collector

for lectotypes (and neotypes):

4) Lectotype: [locality], [collecting date], collector

5) Lectotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], collector

6) Type: [locality], [collecting date], designated by Author Year [sex] [depository], [ID number]" class="external">collector

for syntypes:

7) Syntype(s): [locality], [collecting date], collector; [locality], [collecting date], collector.

8) Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], collector; [locality], [collecting date], collector.

I prefer the following:

Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], designated by Author Year [sex] [depository], [ID number]" class="external">collector; [repeat for syntypes].

[Ralf:

I don't think that we need to define all the details concerning type informations. There are too many preferences and individualisms. Some botanists like the "!" after the acronym (type seen), some not - to name but one example. What we need is to reduce the duplication of type data presentation in the case of any isotype situations.

Actions #13

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Irina] continued ...:

I would use one of these options:

1) Holotype: [locality], [collecting date], collector

2) Holotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], collector

3) Type: [locality], [collecting date], collector

for lectotypes (and neotypes):

4) Lectotype: [locality], [collecting date], collector

5) Lectotype [sex]: [locality], [collecting date], collector

6) Type: [locality], [collecting date], designated by Author Year [sex] [depository], [ID number]" class="external">collector

for syntypes:

7) Syntype(s): [locality], [collecting date], collector; [locality], [collecting date], collector.

8) Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], collector; [locality], [collecting date], collector.

I prefer the following:

Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], designated by Author Year [sex] [depository], [ID number]" class="external">collector; [repeat for syntypes].

[depository] includes information like type lost.

[Ralf]:

I don't think that we need to define all the details concerning type informations. There are too many preferences and individualisms. Some botanists like the "!" after the acronym (type seen), some not - to name but one example. What we need is to reduce the duplication of type data presentation in the case of any isotype situations.

[Irina]:

Well, then we could do this:

Type(s): [locality], [collecting date], [collector] ([kind of type] {[designated by Author Year: page]} [number][sex] [depository], [ID number]{; isotypes: [depository]}); {repeat for syntypes}

The '{ }' would only apply for the respective cases, i.e. lecto-/neotypes, isotypes and syntypes. If paratypes are cited they could be dealt with the same way as syntypes.

Syntype example:

Types: United Kingdom. London (ST 4? BMNH); United Kingdom. Sheffield (ST 2? BMNH).

Paratype example:

Types: United Kingdom. London (HT ? BMNH); United Kingdom. Sheffield (PT 2? BMNH).
Actions #14

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).

[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

[Ralf]:

to add such comments like "presumed destroyed", questions-marks, exclamation-marks etc. are no problem at all. There is already a certain "biodiversity" in our database. And we should allow as much freedom as possible.

[Bill]:

I was really referring to the fact that the paragraph begins "Type" with the various specimens qualified with kind of type, rather than starting "Holotype" for example. It is hard to make suggestions without knowing exactly what the CDm can deliver though.

In general, I agree that we need as much flexibilty as possible.

Actions #15

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).

[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

[Ralf]:

to add such comments like "presumed destroyed", questions-marks, exclamation-marks etc. are no problem at all. There is already a certain "biodiversity" in our database. And we should allow as much freedom as possible.

[Bill]:

I was really referring to the fact that the paragraph begins "Type" with the various specimens qualified with kind of type, rather than starting "Holotype" for example. It is hard to make suggestions without knowing exactly what the CDm can deliver though.

In general, I agree that we need as much flexibilty as possible.

[Ralf]:

we have been discussing this alternative scenarios yesterday. We would prefer mentioning "Holotype" at the beginning. "Type" in the beginning should be restricted to those cases we don't know the quality of type yet (e.g., somewhat unclear protologues). Anyway, these alternative treatments are implemented in the editor and should not create any problems.

Actions #16

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

Replying to a.kohlbecker:

[Bill]:

What about this modification as well, which could apply to most examples:

Type: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (Holotype: B (presumed destroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).

[Based on Soraya's original: Holotype: Borneo, Sabah, Sandakan Ramos 1490 (B (presumedstroyed); isotypes: L, PNH).]

This method of type citing is common in the literature.

[Ralf]:

to add such comments like "presumed destroyed", questions-marks, exclamation-marks etc. are no problem at all. There is already a certain "biodiversity" in our database. And we should allow as much freedom as possible.

[Bill]:

I was really referring to the fact that the paragraph begins "Type" with the various specimens qualified with kind of type, rather than starting "Holotype" for example. It is hard to make suggestions without knowing exactly what the CDm can deliver though.

In general, I agree that we need as much flexibilty as possible.

[Ralf]:

we have been discussing this alternative scenarios yesterday. We would prefer mentioning "Holotype" at the beginning. "Type" in the beginning should be restricted to those cases we don't know the quality of type yet (e.g., somewhat unclear protologues). Anyway, these alternative treatments are implemented in the editor and should not create any problems.

Irina: I'm fine with that...

Actions #17

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

  • Priority changed from Priority02 to Priority10
  • Severity changed from trivial to normal
Actions #18

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 13 years ago

  • Priority changed from Priority10 to Priority13
Actions #19

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 12 years ago

  • Priority changed from Priority13 to Priority14
Actions #20

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 11 years ago

  • Target version changed from DataPortal Release v3.0 to SPRINT Specimen/eFlora 1
Actions #21

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 11 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to New
  • Assignee changed from Andreas Kohlbecker to F.Revilla -
Actions #22

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 11 years ago

  • Priority changed from Priority14 to Highest
Actions #23

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 11 years ago

  • Priority changed from Highest to Priority14
Actions #24

Updated by Francisco Revilla over 11 years ago

  • Priority changed from Priority14 to Highest
Actions #25

Updated by Andreas Müller over 10 years ago

  • Assignee changed from F.Revilla - to Andreas Kohlbecker
Actions #26

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 9 years ago

  • Priority changed from Highest to Priority13
Actions #27

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker about 8 years ago

new input on this topic from Thomas Janßen regarding the Flore d'Afrique Central portal:

Hallo Andreas,

wie gestern besprochen anbei das Format für die Darstellung der vollständigen Typusinformationen auf dem Synonyms-Tab im Portal, wie es uns sinnvoll erscheint. (Typi-Format-FloreAfriqueCentral.doc)

Die Paratypen sind formal keine Typen (aber Orignalmaterial aus dem Protolog). Die sollten in kleinerer Schrift oder notfalls gar nicht angezeigt werden.

Vielen Dank und viele Grüße,

Thomas

Example screenshot: [!Halopertisreekmansiipng|!]

Actions #28

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker about 8 years ago

formatting rules as suggested by Thomas Janßen:

Sortierung:

  1. Status der Typen: a) holo, lecto, neo, syn, b) epi, paralecto, c) para (wenn überhaupt) – die jeweiligen iso immer direct mit dazu

  2. Land

  3. Sammler

  4. Nummer

Aufbau der Typusinformationen:

Land: Lokalität mit Höhe und Koordinaten; Datum; Sammler Nummer (Herbar/Barcode, Typusart; Herbar/Barcode, Typusart …)

see also Typi-Format-FloreAfriqueCentral.doc

Actions #29

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 5 years ago

Actions #30

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 5 years ago

  • Related to feature request #6413: [DISCUSS] How to create type duplicates (e.g. isotypes) for a taxon name added
Actions #31

Updated by Patrick Plitzner almost 5 years ago

  • Related to bug #6526: Show types in correct order added
Actions #32

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 4 years ago

Actions #33

Updated by Andreas Müller over 2 years ago

  • Related to feature request #7696: use compact type representations in the synonymy as provided by the typedesignations/byTaxon/{taxon_uuid} service added
Actions #34

Updated by Andreas Müller 9 months ago

  • Tags set to formatting
  • Subject changed from Impove / compact display of types to Improve / compact display of types
  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #35

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker 9 months ago

  • Tags changed from formatting to formatting, type designation
Actions #36

Updated by Andreas Müller 2 months ago

  • Target version changed from SPRINT Specimen/eFlora 1 to Release 5.31
Actions #37

Updated by Andreas Müller 2 months ago

  • Private changed from Yes to No
Actions #38

Updated by Andreas Müller 2 months ago

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF