EN 16164:2013

2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.MXþHYWasserbeschaffenheit - Anleitung zur Gestaltung und Auswahl von taxonomischen BestimmungsschlüsselnQualité de l'eau - Guide pour la conception et le choix des clés taxonomiquesWater quality - Guidance standard for designing and selecting taxonomic keys13.060.01Kakovost vode na splošnoWater quality in generalICS:Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z:EN 16164:2013SIST EN 16164:2013en,fr,de01-julij-2013SIST EN 16164:2013SLOVENSKI
STANDARD
EUROPEAN STANDARD NORME EUROPÉENNE EUROPÄISCHE NORM
EN 16164
January 2013 ICS 13.060.99 English Version
Water quality - Guidance standard for designing and selecting taxonomic keys
Qualité de l'eau - Guide pour la conception et le choix des clés taxonomiques
Wasserbeschaffenheit - Anleitung zur Gestaltung und Auswahl von taxonomischen Bestimmungsschlüsseln This European Standard was approved by CEN on 24 November 2012.
CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references concerning such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre or to any CEN member.
This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre has the same status as the official versions.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
Management Centre:
Avenue Marnix 17,
B-1000 Brussels © 2013 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved worldwide for CEN national Members. Ref. No. EN 16164:2013: ESIST EN 16164:2013

2 Terms and definitions For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply. 2.1 accuracy correct identification of a specimen to the relevant taxonomic category (e.g. family, genus, species) Note 1 to entry: The definition refers to the context of this European Standard. 2.2 International Code of Botanical Nomenclature ICBN official international taxonomic code for botany 2.3 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ICZN official international taxonomic code for zoology 2.4 nomenclatural rules rules for naming of organisms that are laid down in official taxonomic codes 2.5 traceable identification identification of a taxon which can be traced back to its original publication either directly or indirectly 3 Principles of biological identification The objective of all biological identification is to assign the correct biological name to a specimen, irrespective of the amount of morphological or other variability shown by the taxon in question. This should be done as efficiently as possible, in order to minimise time and resources. Identification provides a link between a specimen of an organism and the original ‘type specimen’ of that taxon. This is often one or more individuals of the species, preserved in a museum collection (or, in the case of many algae, an illustration), which has been described according to the rules of the ICBN or ICZN using text, measurements and illustrations. There are two methods of identifying organisms: by ‘matching’ (pattern recognition) and by ‘logical comparison’ (typically through the use of keys). The academic taxonomic literature often assumes that logical reasoning is used exclusively but, in practice, most biologists use a combination of approaches: relying on memory for naming common organisms and a mix of pattern recognition and logical reasoning for the less common organisms. It is arguably the poor quality of identification literature that causes biologists to switch from logical reasoning to pattern recognition. 4 Requirements for taxonomic keys 4.1 General principles Most identification guides assume that logical comparison plays a large part in the identification of organisms, and the guides have a key, or similar device, at their core. These work by presenting users with a limited number of choices from which to choose either in sequence (‘dichotomous keys’) or in parallel (‘multiaccess keys’). The same principles apply, regardless of the type of key. SIST EN 16164:2013

Requirements for an appropriate identification guide include:  keys appropriate to the geographic area under consideration;  appropriate taxonomic level for the analysis in question;  all known taxa from the region;  written in a language familiar to the analyst. The key itself should provide:  a clearly defined title and scope (completeness of taxonomic group);  robust characters;  clear layout;  clear language;  complete glossary. The points mentioned above are especially relevant since academic taxonomists often write from the perspective of an ‘expert’ and do not always empathise with the skills of those performing the analyses. These points are described in more detail below. 4.2 Title and scope An identification guide should be clear about the taxonomic groups and life stages covered, and the geographical scope of the guide. These should be reflected both in the title and, in more detail, in the introduction. EXAMPLE 1 Titles like “Chironomidae larvae of the Lowlands of Northwesttern Europe”, “Oligochaeta of North-West Europe” and “Chironomidae exuviae of the West Palaearctic Region” suggest a defined overview of the content. However, a number of terms within each title would need amplification in the introduction. Terms such as ‘lowlands’ would need to be explained in more detail, whilst maps and text showing the limits of the author’s understanding of ‘North-West Europe’ and ‘West Palaearctic’ would also be useful. On the other hand, it is often inappropriate to define the geographical scope too precisely; firstly, because the geographical ranges of many species are themselves known only imprecisely and secondly, because the ranges of many species are changing. EXAMPLE 2 Two species of the Trichopertan genus Drusus have been recorded from the Netherlands: D. trifidus and D. annulatus. A third species, D. biguttatus is similar to D. annulatus and has been recorded from sites close to the Dutch border, though not yet from within the Netherlands. A Dutch Trichopteran key which made no reference at all to D. biguttatus runs the risk of users ‘shoehorning’ specimens into D. annulatus. A similar situation exists for the Mollusc genus Corbicula in Britain and Ireland. C. fluminea is described in “Freshwater Bivalves of Britain and Ireland”; however, C. fluminalis has not yet been recorded from Britain and Ireland and is omitted. Users may not realise that C. fluminalis is spreading throughout Europe and may, in time, also spread to Britain and Ireland. SIST EN 16164:2013

The layout of the key should guarantee easy routing through the identification couplets enabling accurate identification in the minimum time. Layout com
...