[SEEK-Taxon] RE: LinneanCore Group Work

[Richard Pyle]

> (1) - Taxonomy is a prerequisite to any nomenclatural novelty thus most
> nomenclatural novelties are based on prior taxonomic concepts - a nom.nov.
> to replace an illegitimate name in the same genus with only the holotype
> representing the species has no changed concept (agreed?)

I'm not entirely sure I agree -- but probably for reasons of semantics more
than anything else.  I would agree with this slightly modified version:
"a nom.nov. to replace an illegitimate name in the same genus with only the
holotype representing the species has no concept information associated with
it at all, aside from the designation of a common holotype."

> - it might,
> however, have a different set of characters used to circumscribe the taxon
> or new characters may have been discovered which were previously
> overlooked.

Yes, and that's how I would define a different concept.  Thus, the
publication establishing a nom.nov. may do two different things, one
nomenclatural, and the other affecting concept circumscription.

> Some might interpret this as a changed concept - perhaps it is,
> but there is
> no part of the Code (ICBN) which says I must cite specimens,
> descriptions or
> whatever when I introduce this nom.nov. so under those circumstances how
> would a new concept be described? It would be a naked name usage, as most
> name usages are, outside the narrow field of systematics.

I think all name usages are "potential concepts".  A subset (1) of those
rise to the level of what one would assign a GUID to as a "real" concept (as
opposed to merely an identification event that applies a previously-existing
defined concept to a specimen or population instance).  A subset (2) of the
GUID-bearing concepts happen to include Code-governed nomenclatural acts.
All I have been trying to say is that the nomenclatural information
contained in that last subset (2) should be stored within the LC portion of
a TCS concept record. The concept information contained in that last subset
(2), as well as the concept information contained in the previous subset
(1), should be stored in TCS outside of the LC parts.


> (2) - Another 'event' to consider; see:
> http://82.43.123.182/IndexFungorum/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=4
> 15945 and
> http://82.43.123.182/IndexFungorum/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=462939
>
> A comb.nov. and a misapplication in the same publication.

The comb.nov. information should be stored in the LC elements of the TCS
record for this instance. The misapplication information should be stored in
TCS outside of the LC elements. Both should point to the same publication,
and be based on the same "usage" instance.

> (3) - w.r.t. names based on single specimens being "effectively useless
> constructs" - I'm told that half the names in zoology are based on single
> specimens. Just an observation.

I assume that those are names based on a single holotype specimen.  To my
knowledge, none of the authors of any of these names intended that name to
apply only to one specimen, and never apply to any other specimen -- no
matter that the name was established based on only a single holotype
specimen.  I'd be willing to bet that even the authors of Nessiteras
rhombopteryx Scott & Rines would have included the parents of the type
specimen in their concept of the taxon. So, though a scientific name based
on a single specimen is not useless, I don't think that any creator of any
scientific name or concept intended the name to apply to a concept of one
and only one specimen.

Aloha,
Rich