Dataset Information

International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) 2.0.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Opal phytoliths (microscopic silica bodies produced in and between the cells of many plants) are a very resilient, often preserved type of plant microfossil. With the exponentially growing number of phytolith studies, standardization of phytolith morphotype names and description is essential. As a first effort in standardization, the International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature 1.0 was published by the ICPN Working Group in Annals of Botany in 2005. A decade of use of the code has prompted the need to revise, update, expand and improve it. SCOPE:ICPN 2.0 formulates the principles recommended for naming and describing phytolith morphotypes. According to these principles, it presents the revised names, diagnosis, images and drawings of the morphotypes that were included in ICPN 1.0, plus three others. These 19 morphotypes are those most commonly encountered in phytolith assemblages from modern and fossil soils, sediments and archaeological deposits. An illustrated glossary of common terms for description is also provided.

SUBMITTER: International Committee for Phytolith Taxonomy (ICPT)

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6758648 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) 2.0.

Annals of botany 20190901 2

<h4>Background</h4>Opal phytoliths (microscopic silica bodies produced in and between the cells of many plants) are a very resilient, often preserved type of plant microfossil. With the exponentially growing number of phytolith studies, standardization of phytolith morphotype names and description is essential. As a first effort in standardization, the International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature 1.0 was published by the ICPN Working Group in Annals of Botany in 2005. A decade of use of the cod ...[more]

PMID: 31334810

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a recent work I transformed a complex and integrated text like the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature into a network of interconnected parts of text. This new approach allowed understanding that a continuous body of text cannot accurately reflect the true structure of the Code, and provided a scientific methodology to identify a priori parts that could be affected by future revisions. In this next step, I investigate further the structure of the Code, seeking to use the network in order to identify the various conceptual communities grouping the various articles and other text items of the Code.MethodsUsing the first version of the network of the Code, I perform a comprehensive modularity analysis in two rounds: the first round aims to identify the fewest and largest communities or modules for the entire network, whereas the second round identifies the sub-modules within each larger module. The potential conflicts between the current structure of the Code and the module composition are evaluated with a parcellation analysis.ResultsThe optimal modularity search identified 10 different modules in the entire network of varying size (ranging from 75 to 200 nodes). Each module can be further divided into smaller modules, that all-together allow describing the 65 conceptual groups of text items in the Code. Parcellation analysis revealed that two-thirds of the current chapters of the Code are in excellent or good accordance with the recovered conceptual modules, whereas the current composition of six chapters is in serious conflict with the conceptual structure of the Code.DiscussionJudging only the composition and not the order of appearance of the Articles in the Chapters of the Code, I show that in many cases the current structure of the Code is found to correspond quite well to the concepts presented therein. The most important conflict is found on the provisions related to the various groups of names governed by the Code: family-, genus-, and species-group names. Currently, these provisions are spread out in different Articles in different Chapters, along the entire length of the Code. The modularity analysis suggests that re-organizing the Code in chapters that will deal with all aspects related to a given group (e.g., chapters including information on name formation, availability, typification, and validity for a given group), could potentially improve reader experience and, consequently, the applicability of the Code.

Project description:BackgroundConfusion between look-alike and sound-alike (LASA) medication names (such as mercaptamine and mercaptopurine) accounts for up to one in four medication errors, threatening patient safety. Error reduction strategies include computerized physician order entry interventions, and 'Tall Man' lettering. The purpose of this study is to explore the medication name designation process, to elucidate properties that may prime the risk of confusion.Methods and findingsWe analysed the formal and semantic properties of 7,987 International Non-proprietary Names (INNs), in relation to naming guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) INN programme, and have identified potential for errors. We explored: their linguistic properties, the underlying taxonomy of stems to indicate pharmacological interrelationships, and similarities between INNs. We used Microsoft Excel for analysis, including calculation of Levenshtein edit distance (LED). Compliance with WHO naming guidelines was inconsistent. Since the 1970s there has been a trend towards compliance in formal properties, such as word length, but longer names published in the 1950s and 1960s are still in use. The stems used to show pharmacological interrelationships are not spelled consistently and the guidelines do not impose an unequivocal order on them, making the meanings of INNs difficult to understand. Pairs of INNs sharing a stem (appropriately or not) often have high levels of similarity (<5 LED), and thus have greater potential for confusion.ConclusionsWe have revealed a tension between WHO guidelines stipulating use of stems to denote meaning, and the aim of reducing similarities in nomenclature. To mitigate this tension and reduce the risk of confusion, the stem system should be made clear and well ordered, so as to avoid compounding the risk of confusion at the clinical level. The interplay between the different WHO INN naming principles should be further examined, to better understand their implications for the problem of LASA errors.

Dataset Information

International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) 2.0.

Publications

International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) 2.0.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets