Find research datasets worth reusing

Supplementary material 2 from: Penev L, Paton A, Nicolson N, Kirk P, Pyle RL, Whitton R, Georgiev T, Barker C, Hopkins C, Robert V, Biserkov J, Stoev P (2016) A common registration-to-publication automated pipeline for nomenclatural acts for higher plants (International Plant Names Index, IPNI), fungi (Index Fungorum, MycoBank) and animals (ZooBank). In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 233–246. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.9551

IPNI response XML : Explanation note: XML response of IPNI to the query in Suppl. material 1. The response is sent back to Pensoft and contains the registration numbers of the new genus name and the new combination [exemplified with the paper of Robinson and Skvarla (2013)].

Supplementary material 4 from: Penev L, Paton A, Nicolson N, Kirk P, Pyle RL, Whitton R, Georgiev T, Barker C, Hopkins C, Robert V, Biserkov J, Stoev P (2016) A common registration-to-publication automated pipeline for nomenclatural acts for higher plants (International Plant Names Index, IPNI), fungi (Index Fungorum, MycoBank) and animals (ZooBank). In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 233–246. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.9551

TaxPub response XML : Explanation note: TaxPub XML returned from ZooBank to Pensoft containing UUIDs of the article, authors and new taxon names [exemplified with the paper of Morffe and Rodríguez (2013)].

Supplementary material 1 from: Penev L, Paton A, Nicolson N, Kirk P, Pyle RL, Whitton R, Georgiev T, Barker C, Hopkins C, Robert V, Biserkov J, Stoev P (2016) A common registration-to-publication automated pipeline for nomenclatural acts for higher plants (International Plant Names Index, IPNI), fungi (Index Fungorum, MycoBank) and animals (ZooBank). In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 233–246. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.9551

XML response of IPNI : Explanation note: XML query sent from Pensoft to IPNI on the day of acceptance of the manuscript for publication [exemplified with the paper of Robinson and Skvarla (2013)].

Supplementary material 3 from: Penev L, Paton A, Nicolson N, Kirk P, Pyle RL, Whitton R, Georgiev T, Barker C, Hopkins C, Robert V, Biserkov J, Stoev P (2016) A common registration-to-publication automated pipeline for nomenclatural acts for higher plants (International Plant Names Index, IPNI), fungi (Index Fungorum, MycoBank) and animals (ZooBank). In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 233–246. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.9551

XML response of TaxPub : Explanation note: TaxPub XML of a ready-to-publish manuscript submitted from Pensoft to ZooBank [exemplified with the paper of Morffe and Rodríguez (2013)].

Figure 3 from: Michel E (2016) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.7460

Figure 3 - The full panel of symposium speakers under the heading WWSD? What would Sherborn Do? From left to right: Suzanne Pilsk, Chris Lyal, Henning Scholz, Edward Dickinson, Neil Evenhuis, Daphne Fautin, Sandy Knapp, Lyubomir Penev, Rod Page, Chris Thompson, Chris Freeland, Gordon McOuat, (behind podium Richard Pyle, David Remsen).

Figure 2 from: Michel E (2016) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.7460

Figure 2 - Sherborn's land and freshwater mollusc collections, with specimen labels in his own handwriting A Gastropods B Bivalves.

Figure 10 from: McOuat G (2016) Naming and Necessity: Sherborn's Context in the 19th Century. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 57–69. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.7399

Figure 10 - An iconographic picture of Sherborn in later years – staged, but revealing and taken at about the time of the final quote.

Figure 4 from: Dickinson EC (2016) Reinforcing the foundations of ornithological nomenclature: Filling the gaps in Sherborn's and Richmond's historical legacy of bibliographic exploration. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 107–134. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10170

Figure 4 - An example of two-state publication. Here the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1887, demonstrates a two-state situation. Left image: "first state". Right image: "second state". Images from Dickinson et al. (2011: 36) reproduced with permission from The Natural History Museum, London.

Figure 2 from: Dickinson EC (2016) Reinforcing the foundations of ornithological nomenclature: Filling the gaps in Sherborn's and Richmond's historical legacy of bibliographic exploration. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 107–134. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10170

Figure 2 - Bibliographic publications per decade, 1970 to late 2011, by subject. Treating books, periodicals and general works such as catalogues (source: references cited by Dickinson et al. 2011).

Figure 3 from: Dickinson EC (2016) Reinforcing the foundations of ornithological nomenclature: Filling the gaps in Sherborn's and Richmond's historical legacy of bibliographic exploration. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 107–134. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10170

Figure 3 - The wrapper for the 13th part of the Planches Coloriées showing vernacular and scientific names. All the wrappers for the first twenty parts, all that were published without supporting texts, have been depicted in Zoological Bibliography: 10 in vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 144–148 and 10 in Vol. 2, No. 1, 37–41 pp. These pages were published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence and may be reproduced with proper attribution.

Figure 4 from: Taylor MA (2016) 'Where is the damned collection?' Charles Davies Sherborn's listing of named natural science collections and its successors. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 83–106. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10073

Figure 4 - Differing treatments of Thomas Hawkins. A The original Sherborn entry in Where is the – Collection? (p. 67) B The much more extensive entry in World Palaeontological Collections (Cleevely 1983, p. 147).

Figure 2 from: Taylor MA (2016) 'Where is the damned collection?' Charles Davies Sherborn's listing of named natural science collections and its successors. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 83–106. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10073

Figure 2 - The final bill from Cambridge University Press, tipped into a copy of Where is the – Collection? in the NHM Library. Photo courtesy R. J. Cleevely, NHM.

Figure 3 from: Welter-Schultes F, Görlich A, Lutze A (2016) Sherborn's Index Animalium: New names, systematic errors and availability of names in the light of modern nomenclature. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 173–187. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10041

Figure 3 - Example of a new name established in a chaotically arranged early zoological work. Detail of Hartmann (1821: p. 231), with the original description of Helix ruderata Hartmann, 1821 (currently Discus ruderatus). For the non-insider it is very difficult to see that a new name was established here. It is necessary to understand precisely the content of the German text: "s. meine Tab. II. f. 11. Der vorigen ähnlich, aber aufgeblasener, rauher, weniger Umgänge" (= see my plate II, figure 11. Similar to the previous one, but more inflated, rougher, fewer whorls).

Figure 1 from: Welter-Schultes F, Görlich A, Lutze A (2016) Sherborn's Index Animalium: New names, systematic errors and availability of names in the light of modern nomenclature. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 173–187. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10041

Figure 1 - Number of names. Total number of taxonomic names listed in Sherborn's Index Animalium and in AnimalBase (2011) plotted in 5-year intervals. It must be taken into account that Sherborn's numbers included a proportion of 30% of names that were not new, while in AnimalBase this proportion was much lower (less than 5 %).

Figure 8 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 8 - The icons around the periphery represent examples of where biological data tagged with scientific names currently exist. The cluster of names in the center represent examples of distinct text-strings that have been used to represent the same species within different data sources.

Figure 2 from: Welter-Schultes F, Görlich A, Lutze A (2016) Sherborn's Index Animalium: New names, systematic errors and availability of names in the light of modern nomenclature. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 173–187. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10041

Figure 2 - Languages used in early zoological literature. Language analysis of 2100 arbitrarily selected binominal zoological works published between 1758 and 1850.

Figure 3 from: Taylor MA (2016) 'Where is the damned collection?' Charles Davies Sherborn's listing of named natural science collections and its successors. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 83–106. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10073

Figure 3 - A sample page (p. 9), including the entry for Mary Anning. This misses her specimens in the British Museum (Natural History).

Figure 9 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 9 - An example ZooBank page, illustrating several GNUB services: 1 user authentication 2 "fuzzy" searching of GNUB content 3 APIs and services 4 ZooBank registration 5 External Identifier cross-linking 6 BHL page linking 7 record editing capabilities 8 similar/related name discovery (via GNI's name searching service); and 9 multi-lingual support. Not shown are services to manage user accounts, de-duplicate records, prototype reconciliation tools, services for journal publishers, and visualization tools for author publication history and other statistics.

Figure 7 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 7 - At the start of modern zoological nomenclature, Linnaeus' tenth edition of Systema Naturae contained almost 4,400 species-group names (left). By 1850, the number of species names for animals had reached nearly 430,000 – an increase of two orders of magnitude.

Figure 4 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009

Figure 4 - Carl Linnaeus used candle-lit microscopes with primitive optics to examine his specimens (left, H. Kingsbury). Modern technology allows us to generate high-resolution 3D CT scans of the internal structures of specimens without displacing a single scale (right top, Digimorph; Chromis abyssus), capture crisp images of tiny organisms through electron microscopy (right middle, NOAA; single-celled foraminifera), and read DNA sequences (right bottom, BOLD, unspecified taxon).