I spend a lot of time searching the web for bibliographic metadata and links to digitised versions of publications.

Few things have annoyed be as much as the following post on TAXACOM:I'm trying to work out why this seemingly innocuous post made me so mad. I think this is because I think this fundamentally framing the question the wrong way. Surely the goal is to have a list of names that is global in scope, well documented, and freely usable by all without restriction? Surely we want open and free access to fundamental biodiversity data?

There are many reasons why the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) is in trouble, but fundamentally I think it's because of situation illustrated by following diagram.Based on an analysis of the Index of Organism Names (ION) database that I'm currently working on, there are around 3.8 million animal names (I define "animal" loosely, the ICZN covers a number of eukaryote groups), of which around 1.5 million are "original

Image by Mr.checker from Wikimedia Commons Science carries a news piece on the perilous state of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (on Twitter as @ZooNom):Pennisi, E. (2013). International Arbiter of Animal Names Faces Financial Woes. Science, 339(6122), 897–897.

Somehow I get the feeling that botanists haven't got the "open data" religion. Not only is the list of plant names list behind a really bad license, but the Global Plants Initiative (GPI) hides its type images behind a JSTOR Plant Sciences paywall.

As part of the discussion on whether legacy biodiversity literature matters a graph from the following paper came up:So, why is the Sarkar et al. graph bogus? Here is their graph (Fig. 3) for animals:This is the number of new animal species described each year, estimated by parsing taxonomic names and extracting the date in the taxonomic authority. There are two prominent "spikes" which are worrying.

I've just come back from a pro-iBiosphere Workshop at Leiden where the role of "legacy literature" became the subject of some discussion.

Continuing the theme of trying to map specimens cited in the literature to the equivalent GBIF records, consider the GBIF record http://data.gbif.org/occurrences/685591320, which according to GBIF is specimen "ZFMK 188762" (a [sic] holotype of Praomys hartwigi ).This is odd, because the original publication of this name (Eisentraut, M. 1968 .Beitrag zur Saugetierfauna von Kamerun.

The rumour that Elsevier is buying Mendeley has been greeted with a mixture of horror, anger, peppered with a few congratulations, I told you so's, and touting for new customers:Here's some probably worthless speculation to add to the mix. Disclosure: I use Mendeley to manage 100,000's of references, and use the API for various projects.

Following on from my previous post bemoaning the lack of links between biodiversity data sets, it's worth looking at different ways we can build these links. Specifically, data can be tightly or loosely coupled. Tight coupling Tight coupling uses identifiers. A good example is bibliographic citation, where we state that one reference cites another by linking DOIs.

The journal Mycokeys has published the following paper:This paper contains a diagram that seems innocuous enough but which I find worrying:The nodes in the graph are "biodiversity megascience platforms", the edges are "cross-linkages and data exchange". What bothers me is that if you view biodiversity informatics through this lens then the relationships among these projects becomes the focus.