Comments on: The New Order? http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/ Topical information from the Suffolk Moth Group Tue, 25 Feb 2020 18:38:33 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1 By: Matthew Deans http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2036 Matthew Deans Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:58:11 +0000 http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2036 I picked the new checklist up and within five minutes had discovered three errors! To start with, they can’t even spell ‘checklist’ on the back cover! Then Bawdsey is mis-spelt with reference to my Cymolomia hartigiana. And according to the new checklist the Conformist has never occurred in Scotland! First impressions, not impressed.

]]>
By: Tony Prichard http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2035 Tony Prichard Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:35:21 +0000 http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2035 I’d not heard of the European numbering scheme being adopted – only the taxonomic ordering and some names changes.

I remain to be convinced about the new numbering scheme. It’s not just new families that may cause problems – what about merging of families, or moving a species from one family to another. In such cases would we change the family part of the number? If so then we end up with two numbers having been used for the same species. I see little benefit of the family number part other than to introduce a decimal point into the number which makes sorting work for additions and it makes it clear that it’s not a B&F number. However, the former could just as easily be achieved by adding the decimal after the species number (eg 2001.1 for a new species to add between 2001 and 2002)

At the heart of the problem is the fact that the number is being used for two different roles – one to uniquely identify the species, the other to indicate taxonomic ordering. The first you hope is constant and the second you expect to change – too frequently it seems. You won’t satisfy both requirements with just a simple number.

Apart from this minor grumble it’s a very impressive piece of work.

]]>
By: Raymond Watson http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2033 Raymond Watson Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:27:18 +0000 http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2033 I thought that they were going to adopt the European system. However thinking about it it is sensible to have our own the only betterment would be a global numbering system for all to adopt. The new numbering is totally equitable with digital data handling. It would need new Lepidoptera families to disrupt it.

]]>
By: Tony Prichard http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2032 Tony Prichard Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:48:08 +0000 http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2032 Seems to be a very good piece of work from what I’ve seen so far. I’m not yet convinced about the new numbering scheme though.

]]>
By: Raymond Watson http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2031 Raymond Watson Sun, 22 Dec 2013 20:32:25 +0000 http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2031 Yes, some new ordering and a few new names. I see we have an Uncertain octogenarian!

]]>
This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Comments on: The New Order?</title>
<atom:link href="http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
<link>http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/</link>
<description>Topical information from the Suffolk Moth Group</description>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 18:38:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
<item>
<title>By: Matthew Deans</title>
<link>http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2036</link>
<dc:creator>Matthew Deans</dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2036</guid>
<description>
<![CDATA[ I picked the new checklist up and within five minutes had discovered three errors! To start with, they can&#039;t even spell &#039;checklist&#039; on the back cover! Then Bawdsey is mis-spelt with reference to my Cymolomia hartigiana. And according to the new checklist the Conformist has never occurred in Scotland! First impressions, not impressed. ]]>
</description>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[ <p>I picked the new checklist up and within five minutes had discovered three errors! To start with, they can&#8217;t even spell &#8216;checklist&#8217; on the back cover! Then Bawdsey is mis-spelt with reference to my Cymolomia hartigiana. And according to the new checklist the Conformist has never occurred in Scotland! First impressions, not impressed.</p> ]]>
</content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>By: Tony Prichard</title>
<link>http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2035</link>
<dc:creator>Tony Prichard</dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:35:21 +0000</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2035</guid>
<description>
<![CDATA[ I&#039;d not heard of the European numbering scheme being adopted - only the taxonomic ordering and some names changes. I remain to be convinced about the new numbering scheme. It&#039;s not just new families that may cause problems - what about merging of families, or moving a species from one family to another. In such cases would we change the family part of the number? If so then we end up with two numbers having been used for the same species. I see little benefit of the family number part other than to introduce a decimal point into the number which makes sorting work for additions and it makes it clear that it&#039;s not a B&amp;F number. However, the former could just as easily be achieved by adding the decimal after the species number (eg 2001.1 for a new species to add between 2001 and 2002) At the heart of the problem is the fact that the number is being used for two different roles - one to uniquely identify the species, the other to indicate taxonomic ordering. The first you hope is constant and the second you expect to change - too frequently it seems. You won&#039;t satisfy both requirements with just a simple number. Apart from this minor grumble it&#039;s a very impressive piece of work. ]]>
</description>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[ <p>I&#8217;d not heard of the European numbering scheme being adopted &#8211; only the taxonomic ordering and some names changes.</p> <p>I remain to be convinced about the new numbering scheme. It&#8217;s not just new families that may cause problems &#8211; what about merging of families, or moving a species from one family to another. In such cases would we change the family part of the number? If so then we end up with two numbers having been used for the same species. I see little benefit of the family number part other than to introduce a decimal point into the number which makes sorting work for additions and it makes it clear that it&#8217;s not a B&amp;F number. However, the former could just as easily be achieved by adding the decimal after the species number (eg 2001.1 for a new species to add between 2001 and 2002)</p> <p>At the heart of the problem is the fact that the number is being used for two different roles &#8211; one to uniquely identify the species, the other to indicate taxonomic ordering. The first you hope is constant and the second you expect to change &#8211; too frequently it seems. You won&#8217;t satisfy both requirements with just a simple number.</p> <p>Apart from this minor grumble it&#8217;s a very impressive piece of work.</p> ]]>
</content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>By: Raymond Watson</title>
<link>http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2033</link>
<dc:creator>Raymond Watson</dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2033</guid>
<description>
<![CDATA[ I thought that they were going to adopt the European system. However thinking about it it is sensible to have our own the only betterment would be a global numbering system for all to adopt. The new numbering is totally equitable with digital data handling. It would need new Lepidoptera families to disrupt it. ]]>
</description>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[ <p>I thought that they were going to adopt the European system. However thinking about it it is sensible to have our own the only betterment would be a global numbering system for all to adopt. The new numbering is totally equitable with digital data handling. It would need new Lepidoptera families to disrupt it.</p> ]]>
</content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>By: Tony Prichard</title>
<link>http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2032</link>
<dc:creator>Tony Prichard</dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:48:08 +0000</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2032</guid>
<description>
<![CDATA[ Seems to be a very good piece of work from what I&#039;ve seen so far. I&#039;m not yet convinced about the new numbering scheme though. ]]>
</description>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[ <p>Seems to be a very good piece of work from what I&#8217;ve seen so far. I&#8217;m not yet convinced about the new numbering scheme though.</p> ]]>
</content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>By: Raymond Watson</title>
<link>http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/index.php/2013/12/21/the-new-order/#comment-2031</link>
<dc:creator>Raymond Watson</dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 22 Dec 2013 20:32:25 +0000</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://suffolkmoths.org.uk/blog/?p=4059#comment-2031</guid>
<description>
<![CDATA[ Yes, some new ordering and a few new names. I see we have an Uncertain octogenarian! ]]>
</description>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[ <p>Yes, some new ordering and a few new names. I see we have an Uncertain octogenarian!</p> ]]>
</content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>