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

[Richard Pyle]

>    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.

Sorry about that!  I missed the attachment.

>    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.

Yes, I apologize for the confusion.  I just naturally think of
"nomenclature" in the sensu-stricto, Code-relevant flavor -- exclusive of
misspellings, vernacular names, etc.  But I realize this is bad use of
language on my part. Henceforth I'll try to be more explicit.

> > 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.

O.K., again, that's a reflection of my ICZN-bias, where this scenario is not
a Code-relevant issue.  But even in the context of the Botany code, I still
see two separate statements here:

"Jones was the first author to combine the name 'bus' (basionym=Aus bus
Smith) with the genus name Xus Jones."

  - and -

"Jones placed the species Xus bus (Smith) Jones SEC Jones within the parent
taxon Xus Jones SEC Jones."

Obviously, the first statement implies the second; but the first statement
is a piece of information specifically relevant to Code-prescribed issues
(with emphasis on the "first author" part); whereas the more general second
statement -- a concept-related statement -- is not in any way affected by
whether Jones was the first author to create this combination in an ICBN
Code-compliant way.

Personally, I would MUCH rather have the ICBN-Code-governed "new
combination" acts treated just as any other TCS concept "species within a
genus" statement is addressed (i.e., outside of LC); but the majority of LC
discussion participants who are from the botanical side were pretty adamant
that new combinations be treated as separate LC instances.

>    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.

Hmmmm...do the Codes say that?  Certainly the ICZN code does not (I don't
think), because the placement of a species within a separate genus from that
used in its original description is not an ICZN-Code-governed act.

> Which is why
> Linnean names (however coarsely) reflect and adjust to taxonomic insight.
> Linnaeus was a strong advocate of having names reflect natural
> relationships,

Ummm...Linnaeus was a creationist (predating Darwin by a century or so), so
I'm not sure how you define the word "natural" here.

> 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)

I have no idea what that parenthetical is in reference to, but this probably
isn't the best forum to hash it out.

>    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).

I guess my point is that, except for type specimen designations, the Codes
deal with information about names, not information about organisms; and
concepts are defined in terms of sets of organisms (not names).  The only
informational point of overlap is the Code-prescribed rules associated with
type specimens. We read a lot of assumptions about taxonomic opinions in the
Codes, but the Codes do not govern taxonomic opinion (only opinions that
have bearing on the relative priority of names, irrespective of the
organisms those names are intended to represent).

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

I hope so!  But you need to involve people who are very familiar with the
Botanical Code as part of the discussion.

> Here it is: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/TcsNameExamples

Thanks!  I'll check out it, and your attachement, this weekend.

Aloha,
Rich