[SEEK-Taxon] RE: relationship types

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Nico,

One more time from me as well:

> > 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:
>
> Quoting ICZN:
>
> 34.2. Species-group names. The ending of a Latin or latinized
> adjectival or
> participial species-group name must agree in gender with the
> generic name with
> which it is at any time combined [Art. 31.2]; if the gender
> ending is incorrect
> it must be changed accordingly (the author and date of the name
> remain unchanged
> [Art. 50.3.2]).
>
> Article 48. Change of generic assignment. An available
> species-group name, with
> change in gender ending if required [Art. 34.2], becomes part of another
> combination whenever it is combined with a different generic name.

Note that neither of the ICZN Articles you quote say anything about
taxonomic opinion.  They only say what rules to apply to a text-string name
*after* a taxonomic opinion has been rendered.

>    Genus-species name combinations involve judgments about the
> similarity of
> multiple types and must comply with currently accepted taxonomic thinking.

There is absolutely nothing in the ICZN Code that says anything about
"currently accepted taxonomic thinking".  The rules govern the use of names
(text-strings) only, and say nothing about taxa (exept for primary type
specimen designation).

> Anything named Curculio spp. is more closely related to each
> other than "it" is
> to anything named Derelomus spp. Am I misunderstanding here?

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding something, or I'm not communicating
well; but certainly there seems to be some miscommunication going on here.
There is nothing in the ICZN Code that says all species names placed within
a given genus name are necessarily "more closely related to each other" than
they are to any other named species in any other genus.  Stated another way,
the Code offers no rules governing *why* a taxonomist chooses to regard all
of the primary type specimens of a set of species epithets as representing
individuals of the same taxonomic genus.  They only lay out the rules for
how names are created, how they are "attached" to primary type specimens,
how to determine nomenclatural "priority" among several competing names,
etc. The point is, the rules are all about name "objects"; not about how or
why a taxonomist should cluster a particular set of species-group name
objects within a genus-group name object.

Maybe I'm the one who is misunderstanding something?

> > "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."
>
>    Sure, the "move" to read the first phrase in a strict
> legalistic sense is
> possible, as is the recording of name relationships while paying minimal
> attention to their varying and evolving taxonomic implications.

EXACTLY (I think...).  LC is concerned with the legalistic ICBN Code-related
information associated with the "move" of the name-object "bus" Smith (as
the secondary component of a binomial) from the name-combination "Aus bus"
Smith, to the name-combination "Xus bus" (Smith) Jones. To me, this can be
thought of as a very different piece of information than the notion that
Jones regarded one taxon concept circumscription (represented by his name
combination "Xus bus", and represented in the TCS context as "Xus bus
(Smith) Jones SEC Jones") to be included within a broader taxon concept
circumscription (represented by his name "Xus" -- represented in the TCS
context as "Xus Jones SEC Jones").

Note that this example only applies to the ICBN Code, and is only relevant
to this discussion if the Botanical preference for treating each new
combination as a separate "name" object prevails for all of LC.

>    Of course for us the latter is the objective, the sooner the
> better.

By "us", I assume you mean SEEK/TCS (and eventually, one would hope, more
generally all of taxonomy)?

> We need
> to assure now that the LC designers understand these
> relationships in such a way
> that a later "filling-in" of actual taxonomic meanings is
> possible.

I certainly agree that we all need to understand each other (that includes
intra-TCS and intra-LC discussions as well).

> If we are
> willing to understand how narrowly a name change can be
> interpreted, we might
> rightly expect that one also makes room for a broad and more biologically
> relevant reading. As far as I understand the Codes, genus-species
> combinations
> permit both kinds of readings. In that case, choosing a system
> that can handle both seems favorable.

Certainly we want to accomodate both (all) needs.  And I believe those needs
are best met by not representing information about taxon concepts and
information about Code-governed name objects as the same class of
information.

Aloha,
Rich