February, 2000 
SCAMIT Newsletter 
Vol. 18, No. 10 
RESOLVED: NO CONFLICT 
A group of taxonomists involved in the 
identification of the B’98 benthic samples met 
at SCCWRP on the 24 th of January to resolve 
discrepancies between the primary and 
secondary taxonomists. The discrepancies had 
come to light in comparison of the 
identifications provided for the same sample by 
primary and secondary taxonomists during 
Quality Control sample reanalysis. Thirty-six 
samples were exchanged between the 
laboratories involved, but not every lab got 
samples from every other lab. Effort in the QC 
reanalysis was as uneven (and in the same 
proportion) as the initial sample distribution; 
10% of the samples from each laboratory were 
reidentified. 
After the secondary taxonomists had gone 
through each sample and independently arrived 
at identities and counts for the organisms 
contained, they were sent a copy of the results 
as submitted by the primary taxonomic lab. 
The secondary taxonomists then prepared a 
Discrepancy Report listing the taxa where 
primary and secondary nomenclature was not 
the same. Armed with this document we 
gathered to reexamined the samples (where 
necessary) and to attempt to explain the 
discrepancies. Although the results may be 
applied to the original dataset by the 
originating agency (i.e. - detected errors can be 
corrected) this will not be done in the overall 
dataset. The purpose of this exercise is 
generation of metadata that will allow others 
(and ourselves) to determine the accuracy of 
the taxonomic processing. 
Before we began Dave Montagne gave us a 
presentation of the nature of the process and a 
summarization of the results of its application 
to the SCBPP data in 1994. Most of the 
participants had been involved in the process in 
1994 but we needed a refresher course before 
starting the process again. The SCCWRP 
Benthic Scientist in charge of the analysis of 
the B’98 data was in attendance, Dr. Ananda 
Ranasinghe. For many of us it was our first 
meeting with him. He got a chance to observe 
the process in action during the day. After our 
introductory comments we broke into small 
groups centered on the 3 dissecting and two 
compound scopes set up for the exercise. It 
was chaos, but an organized chaos, which 
yielded considerable progress during the day. 
Several participants had served on several 
teams, and so had a number of exchange 
samples with which they were involved. 
Consequently, during part of the day we were 
waiting our turn for either a particular 
colleague, or a microscope to be available. This 
melee of small group formation and dissolution 
continued the rest of the day, and a working 
lunch was brought in so that it could continue 
uninterrupted. Even so we were not able to 
resolve all issues at this first meeting. 
A second meeting was held on 9 February and 
a series of additional conflicts were addressed. 
A few of the first meeting participants were not 
able to attend the second meeting, but work 
continued without them. By the end of the day 
it was apparent that an additional meeting of 
the entire group would not be necessary. 
Instead, one or two smaller meetings would be 
held between much smaller groups of 
participants to resolve remaining discrepancies 
in shared samples. 
With continued effort on the part of the 
taxonomists involved we should be able to 
complete this portion of the project soon, 
making it possible to submit final versions of 
the benthic data for review by the Synoptic 
Review Committee. The review itself will 
require several meetings and should yield as 
completely standardized a dataset as is possible 
for a project with so many participating groups. 
Once this portion of the process is completed, 
the QC manager will examine the Discrepancy 
Resolution Reports and characterize the nature 
and extent of error in the data. Some of the 
issues will not be interpretable, however, until 
the synoptic data review is completed. During 
that effort some data which has been treated 
8 
