TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing taxon names in palynology (I): working with databases

AU - Gravendyck, Julia

AU - Fensome, Robert A.

AU - Coiffard, Clément

AU - Bachelier, Julien B.

N1 - Funding Information: We are very grateful to Stephen Stukins (Natural History Museum London) and Niall Paterson (CASP, Cambridge) for sharing information on the JWIP cards. The Trustees of the Natural History Museum (London) are thanked for permission to reproduce the JWIP cards illustrated herein. Furthermore, we thank Maria Schauer for her diligent help with compiling part of the dataset. JG thanks Wolfram Kürschner (University of Oslo, Norway), who organised a visit to the Geological Survey of Austria, which brought her for the first time in contact with type material and associated challenges that inspired this paper. RAF acknowledges support of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), Natural Resources Canada and thanks Robert Courtney for his internal GSC review and discussion: this is NRCan Contribution number 20210429. We thank young artist Lena Gravendyck who provided the illustrations for taxa used in . We also want to thank Susanne Flach (University of Zürich). As a linguistic lecturer with a special focus on corpus methods, she inspired the first author during her philological studies, leaving her with a lasting impression that changed her perspective on language, its semantic units and their role as agents in our (scientific) communication. Additionally, we thank Annette Götz and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive input and suggestions which significantly improved this manuscript.

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - An overview of the history of a taxon name and its current status are critical in taxonomy; and selecting the correct name from among synonyms is commonly important in applied studies. This often onerous task can be facilitated by working with databases that can be used to develop an overview of the number of species within a genus as well as their spatial and temporal distributions and their frequency of use. For example, a quantitative analysis of the use of competing names can inform formal proposals to conserve, protect, or reject names. Currently, palynologists can consult two extensive databases, Palynodata and the John Williams Index of Palaeopalynology, both of which were discontinued, in 2006 and 2015, respectively. As new data accumulates, analyses require augmentation from uncurated online resources such as Google Scholar. Here, we conducted a case study for four Mesozoic genera relevant for example in studying the Triassic–Jurassic transition in the Germanic Basin. The genera contain a total of 65 species. The study compared the output from the two databases of references and an online source for the species inventory over time by analysing more than 2000 citations and their cross-occurrences. We found that the John Williams Index is the most accurate and extensive, but it can only be consulted in person in London. Palynodata, available as a dataset or online, is the more accessible source of information. Our study also shows that no significant difference results from whether one combines the John Williams Index or Palynodata with Google Scholar since using any two of these sources provide a recovery of at least 75% of all citations compared to using all three. In conclusion, each database has its own advantages and disadvantages, and when working under time pressure, the choice of database depends on the research question asked.

AB - An overview of the history of a taxon name and its current status are critical in taxonomy; and selecting the correct name from among synonyms is commonly important in applied studies. This often onerous task can be facilitated by working with databases that can be used to develop an overview of the number of species within a genus as well as their spatial and temporal distributions and their frequency of use. For example, a quantitative analysis of the use of competing names can inform formal proposals to conserve, protect, or reject names. Currently, palynologists can consult two extensive databases, Palynodata and the John Williams Index of Palaeopalynology, both of which were discontinued, in 2006 and 2015, respectively. As new data accumulates, analyses require augmentation from uncurated online resources such as Google Scholar. Here, we conducted a case study for four Mesozoic genera relevant for example in studying the Triassic–Jurassic transition in the Germanic Basin. The genera contain a total of 65 species. The study compared the output from the two databases of references and an online source for the species inventory over time by analysing more than 2000 citations and their cross-occurrences. We found that the John Williams Index is the most accurate and extensive, but it can only be consulted in person in London. Palynodata, available as a dataset or online, is the more accessible source of information. Our study also shows that no significant difference results from whether one combines the John Williams Index or Palynodata with Google Scholar since using any two of these sources provide a recovery of at least 75% of all citations compared to using all three. In conclusion, each database has its own advantages and disadvantages, and when working under time pressure, the choice of database depends on the research question asked.

KW - John Williams Index of Palaeopalynology

KW - Palynodata

KW - Taxonomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124374163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/01916122.2022.2026834

DO - 10.1080/01916122.2022.2026834

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - (1)-(11)

JO - PALYNOLOGY

JF - PALYNOLOGY

SN - 0191-6122

IS - 3

ER -