[SEEK-Taxon] RE: LinneanCore Group Work

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Nov 12 18:29:10 PST 2004


> 1. Rich's view is (very roughly) that just the implication of a
> type specimen doesn't qualify a name use as a concept (he wrote:
> "a circumscription of one specimen is so unbelievably useless a
> concept, that it really shouldn't be thought of as a concept at all").

Mmmmm...not exactly.  What I am saying is that in the special cases of
name-uses that have relevance to Code-governed name rules (e.g., the
original description of a new species name), there are TWO kinds of
information that need to be tracked: name-object information (included
within LC), and concept-object information (included within TCS outside of
LC). This is as opposed to other name-uses that may have concept-information
that needs to be tracked as a separate instance in TCS ("Aus bus Smith 1949
SEC. Pyle 2000"), but does not have new name-object information associated
with it.  I CERTAINLY didn't mean to imply that the original description of
"Aus bus" by Smith 1949 contained *only* name information and no concpet
information.  Indeed, I was trying to say exactly the opposite!

> 2. You in turn are saying (again roughly) that "at least we must
> consider whether there are hierarchical implications" (does my
> renaming of atratus cascade up to the genus-level?). I wonder
> whether Rich would agree...

It's not so much that I agree or disagree about whether hierarchical
implications cascade to concept information.  My main point was that issues
of subjective synonomy are definitely *not* strictly nomenclatural
information (e.g., LC would not have any elements to track subjective
synonyms).

> The point is: both of you actually place your own preferred
> measuring sticks for achieving what I called goal 2 in my
> previous e-mail (better communication about nature) over goal 1
> (managing information in taxonomic publications/database in
> precise and lasting ways).

I'm not sure I fully understand this distinction, nor am I sure you've
accurately characterized my views on this.  AT the moment, I find myself
bogged down in the goal of "better communication about how I think we can
achieve better communication about nature" (or something like that). :-)

> The TCS enjoys no such luxuries! Jessie in particular could
> have come up with her third way of deciding when we've crossed
> the nomenclature/taxonomy line. And in fact she did, and then
> went on to implement the positions of five additional parties
> as well, several of which do in fact only wish to handle "names,"
> except their preferred handlings of names actually differ when
> compared with the names that other parties prefer to handle.
> Are you starting to hear goal 1 calling louder and louder?

I can't figure out the goal 1 / goal 2 distinction, but I'm having an even
harder time trying to figure out what the barrier to effective communication
is here.  TCS, in the draft presented to TDWG, borrowed ABCD's name
sub-schema to stick in the TCS "NameDetailed" element.  Many of us in the
nomenclatural community feel that the ABCD sub-schema is insufficient to
accomodate the informational needs of nomenclators.  We would *like* to use
TCS to manage our information, but we do not believe that we can. So, we are
trying to propose a more-robust name schema to effectively replace the ABCD
name sub-schema in TCS (and maybe make a few minor suggestions to TCS about
elements such as "Kingdom", and perhaps coordinate on "Rank").

I think the problem is that some people see publications being cited in LC,
and fall back on the assumption that Name+Publication=Concept, and therefore
that LC is somehow trying to manage concept information that really belongs
in other parts of TCS.  I am very sympathetic to this point of view, because
in my own data model (Taxonomer), I effectively take the stand that
Name+Publication=Assertion, and Assertion=Potential Concept.  However, the
point I have been trying to make is that there are "strictly nomenclatural"
connections between Name+Publication (as governed by Codes of nomenclature)
that have absolutely nothing to do with Taxonomic Concepts (which I define
here as abstract definitions of sets or circumscriptions of organisms) --
except for the peculiar situation with primary type specimens.  These are
the connections that LC endeavors to represent.

> My point was: my two examples were clearly examples of name uses -
> actually also name use changes - proposed and published in the
> primary taxonomic literature. This is what we are attempting to
> store; Berendsohn's "name sec. reference" annotation applies. In
> that info-managing sense Neoderelomus sec. Hoffmann and Phyllotrox
> atratus sec. Franz they are both concepts.

I agree (I think) with everything you say above.  But what I would add is
that, if Franz was the first to ever placethe species epithet atratus within
the genus Phyllotrox, then the botanical view holds that "Phyllotrox atratus
(Fall) Franz" is a different "name instance" from "Hypoleschus atratus Fall"
(something I am still trying to adjust to).  In that case, there is also
nomenclatural information represented. If, however, some other previous
author had treated atratus within Phyllotrox, then there would be no new
nomenclatural information (no new name-object instance) introduced by Franz,
so the information contained in Franz' publication would be entirely
concept-oriented information (referencing pre-existing Name-object
instances).

> In fact, as TDWG participants found out, our real challenge is not
> how to separate nomenclature from taxonomy (we treat both as conceptual
> information and let the actually transported contents [including their
> relationships] speak for themselves), but how to encourage parties to
> identify themselves as strict "identifiers/users" of concepts vs.
> "creators," viz. to come to terms with their speaker roles.

Another problem that I agree is a major issue, but one that I don't think
involves LC.

>  I would propose that the success for the LC/TCS interaction will depend
> much more on an understanding of broadly sustainable and flexible
information
> management challenges than on a clean distinction of nomenclature and
taxonomy.
> The TCS has already come to understand these aspects quite well; that
Jessie
> et al. respect the demands of goal 1 (information management) more than
their
> own preferences about how to achieve goal 2 (see Prometheus) should tell
us a lot.

I find myself in a similar situation to Jessie's -- arguing in favor of an
information management solution that does not perfectly match my own view of
optimized data structure.  Indeed, if you dissect my arguments in this
context, many of them run counter to what I express (and still believe)
through Taxonomer.

Before I go much further on this, I really need to understand the intended
meaning of the different "types" of concepts (Nominal, Orignal, etc.)  Once
someone can explain/define those for me, I'll be able to communicate more
effectively in a language that is more understandable to people familiar
with TCS.

Aloha,
Rich





More information about the Seek-taxon mailing list