Are there guidelines on which taxa should be always be linked in Biblio literature files (or which taxa should be excluded)? I've mainly been adding taxa that are newly named and/or prominently discussed in the source (e.g. in systematic accounts with diagnostic descriptions of a previously defined genus, I'll tag the genus as well as species novae). Literature that is more general or synthetic rather than taxonomic is more complicated, and checklists can easily include hundreds of taxa.
Would it also be advised to link other taxa that are discussed in passing or introductory context? Is mere mention of a taxon name in text sufficient to tag it?
Should multiple synonyms of the same taxon be listed (as in taxonomic accounts), or is this redundant? How about newly designated synonyms?
If a taxonomic key or map is given, should all listed taxa be entered?
Should taxa always be listed as they appear in the text, even if this conflicts with or is not present in Myriatrix taxonomy? (e.g. if a source states "Foogenus smithi", but the Myriatrix only has "Foogenus (Boogenus) smithi", should the latter be linked?)
Any other general considerations?
Guidelines for taxa linked in literature
Hi Sam,
Adding taxa that are newly named and/or prominently discussed in the source is great. I am not aiming at completeness, as it is a great burden. I will aim at completeness for taxa mentioned on my papers. I will also strive for completeness regarding the new names contained in a publication. I am already doing that for the new publications and names, and for a few old publications that I have added.
I prefer to rely on co-curation over time than on setting the burden of listing all names in a publication as a mandatory standard. I think that we will get more information inside if the contributors are motivated to use the platform for developing their own project the most they can, instead of feeling an arbitrary standard as a burden beyond their interest. Filling gaps and completing information beyond one's own project should be based on personal motivation, not on a standard. That's how I see it, but there may be other opinions.
"Is mere mention of a taxon name in text sufficient to tag it?" Yes, a mention is enough. Machine algorithms for taxon tagging (e.g in BHL) tag everything. Compared to that, there is no such thing as a "sin for tagging mentions". ;-) And yes, mentions in keys are okay to add... or not.
Tagging multiple synonyms of the same taxon is not redundant. Taxon tagging not only enhances a literature entry but it also adds the reference to the reference list on the literature tab for that name. Example: Scolopendra sagraea is a synonym of Scolopendra alternans but if every time that both names are mentioned together they are also tagged, not one but two reference lists will be expanded. Additionally, newly designated synonyms represent what is called a "nomenclatural act", in the case you mention, a new synonymy has been established and it is always good to capture that at least by tagging the synonym.
Capturing combinations is also important. If a source states "Foogenus smithi", but Myriatrix only has "Foogenus (Boogenus) smithi", then, ideally: 1) Combination "Foogenus smithi" could be created, nested under "Foogenus (Boogenus) smithi", and 2) the literature reference could be tagged with both names. Capturing different combinations allows us to see how a name has evolved in the literature, or how many times a specific combination has been used and by whom. But again, entering a reference and not tagging it at all is still good, tagging it with at least one form of a name is good, tagging it with two or more combinations is great. As motivated as you feel and as useful you think it could be to your project.