Question

Each of these databases has their own summary of their aims and process - but they rarely seem to mention each other in comparison. It's hard to figure out what differences or relationships exist between them. It seems like some of them use data from others, but not exclusively. Should one of these be considered the primary or central source for botanical taxonomy? Are each of these databases reinventing the wheel independently, or are they just presenting the same data with different interfaces? Is any of them considered the most reliable or complete? World Checklist for Selected Plant Families (WCSP)World Checklist for Vascular Plants (WCVP)Plants of the World Online (POWO)World Flora Online (WFO)

Answer 1

Botanical taxonomy databases like WCSP, WCVP, POWO, and WFO each serve different but complementary roles, with no single database being the central source. They focus on various taxonomic scopes and user needs, with their reliability dependent on their updating practices and depth of coverage.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the realm of botanical taxonomy, various databases serve distinct but complementary purposes. Although no single database is considered the primary or central source, they each specialize in particular aspects of plant taxonomy. For instance, the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP) is recognized for its detailed and authoritative listings of family and genera status, while the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP) covers a broader taxonomic spectrum of vascular plants with their conservation statuses. Plants of the World Online (POWO) is a user-friendly database focusing on providing access to Kew's plant taxonomic data, and the World Flora Online (WFO) aims to create a comprehensive, accessible repository of the world's flora. While each database might appear to reinvent the wheel, they actually complement each other by focusing on different facets of plant biodiversity and taxonomy. The databases do sometimes use data from each other, and their reliability and completeness can vary based on their individual updating practices and the depth of information they cover.

Choosing the most reliable or complete database often depends on the specific requirements of the user, such as geographical coverage, taxonomic focus, or the inclusion of conservation statuses. While some databases provide a single unified, complete and maintained database of valid formal names, the reality of synonyms and cryptic species adds complexity to the task. Ultimately, all databases are valuable in compiling and improving our understanding of plant taxonomy, and users may benefit from consulting multiple databases to obtain the most accurate and comprehensive information.