[SEEK-Taxon] RE: LinneanCore Group Work

[Nico Franz]

Hi all:

    I want to single out this one point of contention among Jessie and Rich 
from the LC Wiki. The point concerns the handling of "strictly 
nomenclatural" procedures affecting and involving the status of names.

    I have some questions and some comments.

Question 1: I recently submitted a paper in which, as a result of a 
genus-level analysis ("revision"), a species previously placed in its own 
genus now must be "sunk" into another. So Hypoleschus atratus Fall should 
now be called (according to me) Phyllotrox atratus (Fall). I don't 
specifically publish any reevaluation of identified (type) specimens, or 
species-specific descriptions in my paper. So would the "Hypoleschus 
atratus Fall is now a synonym of Phyllotrox atratus (Fall)" statement 
qualify as a strictly nomenclatural procedure? Please (Rich/Jessie/others) 
answer yes/no, and/or explain.

Question 2: Of course there are cases in taxonomy where by "just going 
through the literature," one can see that things need to be renamed. In 
1938 Hoffmann discovered that the name of his recently published new genus 
Pseudoderelomus had already been used (for another taxon) by Champion in 
1910. So Hoffmann published another very brief note (like 3 phrases total) 
in which he renamed his new genus into Neoderelomus. There was certainly no 
mention of any types, other constituents, diagnoses, etc. in that tiny 
note. So is the "Pseudoderelomus (sec. Hoffmann) is a synonym of 
Neoderelomus (replacement name proposed by Hoffmann)" a strictly 
nomenclatural procedure? If yes, fine; if no, please (Rich) provide an 
example where this does apply. How strictly nomenclatural does one have to get?


Comments: I apologize if I'm not catching up to your level yet. As you know 
I'm not a database specialist. So far as I can see, I agree with Jessie's 
view that there should be no instances of names used in taxonomic 
publications without a "sec." I do think, however, that Jessie's point 
could be made more convincingly and will give it a shot.

    If I understand the history of "concepts" in databases correctly, then 
there has long been a conflict between two issues. One may describe those 
as (1) accurate labeling of separate pieces of information (so that the 
pieces can be exchanged freely and reassembled into their original form); 
and (2) better expressing the dynamics of nomenclature and taxonomy than 
can be done storing a single (however authoritative) view about how to 
classify nature.

    The beauty of Berendsohn's "definition" of the term "concept" is that 
it is so vague as to allow both goals to coexist, even if in reality they 
are sometimes antagonistic (see Rich's slightly genial "To me, this is not 
a meaningful "taxonomic concept" -- by anyone's definition"). If you don't 
be believe this, pease re-read his 1995 and 2003 papers - almost anything 
goes there. The TCS - by experience - must adopt the same vague 
Berendsohnian approach. It is not only a tool for managing different views 
about nature but also a tool for managing "pieces of information" existing 
in the taxonomic literature and in taxonomic databases. I am certain that 
this "almost-anything-goes" approach violates many people's notions of what 
concepts should be. But then again they don't have the benefit of Jessie et 
al.'s experiences with a community of taxonomists.

    Are the examples 1 & 2 above concepts in the information 
management-related sense? Yes. The TCS should eventually accommodate a 
Phyllotrox atratus (Fall) SEC. FRANZ (2005, I hope...), and also a 
Neoderelomus (Hoffmann) SEC. HOFFMANN (1938, second tiny publication). 
These "strictly nomenclatural" procedures are, after all, procedures 
enacted by expert speakers, published in expert outlets, according to 
expert interpretations of how nature should be named and yes, how the rules 
of nomenclature interact (with some leeway on each side) with taxonomy. I 
would like us to reach a consensus about the radical (not!) idea that, even 
though taxonomy and nomenclature work partly independently, they are also 
in many ways interdependent! That is so because our adoption of Linnaean 
nomenclature is meant to carry and convey expert information content. 
Doesn't Hoffmann's 1938 name replacement reflect a clear recognition of his 
genus being different from Champion's? Doesn't my renaming of Hypoleschus 
reflect insights of a lengthy cladistic analysis? With some leeway, 
nomenclature follows taxonomy, and sometimes later it follows its own 
rules, but only after following taxonomic insights first. We shouldn't 
ruffle over things like this.

    Whether or not Franz (2005) and Hoffmann (1938) talk about one or more 
specimens (Rich's angle) is actually not the reason why the TCS treats 
"nomenclatural issues" as concepts. The point of the latter is not to 
revolutionize what people consider a "taxonomic definition," or to overly 
conflate nomenclature and taxonomy, but to arrive at a future-proof 
solution to managing information stemming from many taxonomy-related 
outlets. That is the inherent strength of the "sec." annotation, more so 
than telling us when a publication is "strictly nomenclatural" or "mostly 
taxonomic."

    If we can come to a consensus on the partially independent/partially 
interdependent statement above, then we might eventually see that "strictly 
nomenclatural procedures" would do more damage to the concept approach if 
treated as in the LC than their analogues would do to traditional 
nomenclature if treated as in the TCS.

Cheers,

Nico

Nico M. Franz
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
735 State Street, Suite 300
Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Phone: (805) 966-1677; Fax: (805) 892-2510; E-mail: franz at nceas.ucsb.edu
Website: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~franz/

****



Jessie: Although the process of nomenclature is separate from the process 
of classification (and yes I'm co-author on a paper in Taxon arguing this), 
as soon as one considers the use of names either by taxonomists or other 
biologists or even nomenclature specialists I haven't seen a convincing 
discussion or proposal that actually keeps names separate from concepts and 
I am even more convinced of this having talked to a wide range of potential 
users this past year. So let me re-iterate: people can't refer to concepts 
without names nor does a name exist without some kind of relationship to a 
concept.
    * Rich: I agree with you on the first part of your last sentence quoted 
above, but not on the second part. And I think this may well be the source 
of a lot of the confusion and misunderstanding. The only biological 
material that is necessary for a taxonomic name to exist is the implication 
that a primary type specimen-individual (or syntype series-individuals) 
existed at one time. That is, the only "concept" that must exist in order 
for a name to exist is a single individual organism. To me, this is not a 
meaningful "taxonomic concept" -- by anyone's definition. In other words, a 
circumcription of one specimen is so unbelievably useless a concept, that 
it really shouldn't be thought of as a concept at all. "Aus bus Smith, 
1949" refers to a name object -- which means that Smith, in her 1949 
publication, complied with the relevant Code of nomenclature to make the 
name "Aus bus" available according to the Code. It is linked to the real 
world of biology only through the primary type specimen(s).

    * Rich: These two different object units -- the name object, and the 
concept object -- need to be handled separately. LC needs to include the 
publication details of the "Smith 1949" publication, because there are of 
nomenclatural importance in identifying the nomenclatural act that 
established the name "Aus bus". TCS needs to separately include the 
publication details of the "Smith 1949" publication, to place within the 
"AccordingTo" structure, to show that we mean the name "Aus bus Smith 1949" 
according to the usage of Smith 1949.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-taxon/attachments/20041112/e934527f/attachment.htm