[SEEK-Taxon] RE: concept types, relationship types

[franz@nceas.ucsb.edu]

For all SEEKsters:

   Please note that my previous e-mail had an ATTACHMENT (named
ConceptTypesSummary2.doc) which contains a new proposal to usefully categorize
concepts. The stuff about relationships was not supposed to divert from this.

*****

Hi Rich:

   Thanks for your comments, and yes, using the terms "nomenclatural" and
"code-prescribed" as interchangeable can be confusing because the Codes do deal
with "strict" spelling rules (literature study is enough to tell) as well as
genuine taxonomic issues that can only be explained and resolved through
examination of multiple (!) type specimens. I have little to add to your
insightful comments. Except...

Quoting Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>:

> Hi Nico,
[snip]
> 
> I'm not so sure I agree.  I really believe that the only real area of
> conflict is with type-specimen designation.  To me, a "Concept" implies
> involvement of more than one individual organism.  Code rules, to my
> knowledge, never pertain to more than one individual organism (except in
> the
> case of syntypes, or possibly neotypes if you acknowledge that an original
> primary type existed).  But code rules never apply to a scope of individual
> organisms that any of us would consider to be a "concept".

NMF: No. When I Code-compliantly RENAME a species following transfer from one
genus to another, this renaming is rooted in a classic phylogenetic three-taxon
statement. Genus 1 (Quercus) has a type, and genus 2 (Betula) has a type, and I
assert that the type of my species X (X. betula-quercum; soon Q. or B.) is more
closely related to one than to the other.

   There is no justificatory context for that particular naming change other
than taxonomic analysis involving multiple specimens and judgments about their
relative similarities. The Codes say I cannot promote this sort of three-element
taxonomy unless I also do the required nomenclatural adjustments. Which is why
Linnean names (however coarsely) reflect and adjust to taxonomic insight.
Linnaeus was a strong advocate of having names reflect natural relationships,
and the smallest set of organisms with which that is possible is "3". (A point
which gets lost in the PhyloCode, and it thereby achieves a more complete
nomenclature/taxonomy disconnect - to the likely detriment of users)

   As we all know there are OTHER Code-prescribed acts that have no such
taxonomic components. That's why the nomenclatural/taxonomy disconnect is
partial, and the Codes heterogeneously prescribe "Concepts Light" (sometimes
concepts, other times just naming rules).

   We should be able to do a better job of sorting these things out in the near
future.

> > Of course, Trevor & Jessie have already
> > shown that all code-prescribed relationships and acts CAN in principle be
> > represented using the concept approach.
> 
> Can you point me to this documentation?  I've been out ot the TCS/LC loop
> since November, and I'm now trying to get caught up with the developments
> since then.
 
Here it is: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/TcsNameExamples

Cheers,

Nico

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/