[Tcs-lc] concepts of Higher taxa

[Richard Pyle]

> Actually the mixing of taxonomy and nomeclature was deliberate
> although I now regret having removed a sentence regarding my
> concerns over suggesting that the higher taxon concept and not
> just the name of higher taxon should be cited when publishing a
> new member taxon. Primarily this is because such a change would
> indeed further erode the supposed distinction between nomenclature
> and classification embodied in the codes.

I see now that we are in agreement on this point as well!

> However we have to face the fact that the binomial naming
> in itself creates this confusion.

Indeed!  That's why I tend to favor the Zoological perspective that the
"name" is the terminal part only, and the binomial/trinomial parts are
simply there to indicate classification, and to disambiguate
terminal-epithet homonyms. To me, "Aus bus Smith" and "Xus bus (Smith)
Jones" should be treated as the same "name", with the recognition that Smith
and Jones each placed the species within a different nomenclatural
classification.  No difference, in my mind, from "Aus Smith, placed in the
family Aiidae by Smith" vs. "Aus Smith, placed in the family Xiidae by
Jones".  It sort of boils down to what role we perceive the "binomal" nature
of Linnean names to be.

> If we wish to remove the confusion created by binomial names then
> IMHO we have to make the change to the codes and accept the erosion
> of the separation between nomenclature and classification.

Or...we convince the botanists to adopt the zoological perspective of a
"name".

> By requiring the author to identify the higher taxon concept they
> are expanding when publishing a new member we would then be
> forcing them to perform "the specific act of inclusion" and a new
> concept of the higher taxon would be automatically created.

I would rather that the new species be "included in" the Nominal-type
TaxonConcept instance for the name; or, perhaps, the creation of a new
TaxonConcept instance of the genus AccordingTo the new-species author, which
minimally includes the type specimen of the new species and the type
specimen of the type species of the genus name -- and may map congruevtly or
otherwise to previous concept defintions of the same genus name, as
determined by third parties via RelationshipAssertions.

> This, however, would be a version of the higher taxon concept sec.
> the author of the new member taxon and not sec. the author of the
> original higher taxon concept.

Exactly!!!

> 1) Higher taxon concepts are developed in a strict linear sequence
> and any new member taxa always extends the newest higher taxon
> concept in the sequence.

I do not favor this view.

> 2) Higher taxon concepts are developed in a non-linear sequence with
> branches created whenever a new revision (as opposed to just adding
> a new member taxon in isolation) of the higher taxon is undertaken.
> Once such a branch in the sequence is created each arm of the "tree"
> develops in its own independent linear sequence and new members can
> be independently added to any branch.

This sounds better to me, but I'm not clear of what you mean by "revision".
Does that basically mean that concepts are created only when all senior and
junior synonyms of all child taxa are explicitly addressed within the same
publication?

Aloha,
Rich