[tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain

[Richard Pyle]

That's pretty much exactly how I've been dealing with them, but I see a
problem when we think in terms of concepts. Using my previous example in
Jones:

Aus bus Smith
Aus cf. bus Smith

We actually have three concepts SEC. Jones:

- Aus bus Smith SEC. Jones
- Aus cf. bus Smith SEC. Jones
- Aus SEC. Jones

(I neglected to include that third one in my previous email.)

So, my practice has been similar to yours in that the "cf. bus" would
default back to simply "Aus" (with a comment indicating that it was more
specifically identified as "cf. bus").  But we can't really do that in this
case, because we have a "real" Aus SEC. Jones TaxonConcept instance, that is
not congruent to the concept implied by Jones' use of "Aus cf. bus Smith".

I believe there is value in capturing the concept intended by Jones when he
referred to "cf. bus"; so like you, I think they should be captured as a
distinct TaxonConcept instance (separate from "Aus bus SEC. Jones" and from
"Aus SEC. Jones").  I'm just not sure whether they should be represented in
LC as distinct from the "Aus" and "Aus bus Smith" name objects -- and if so,
how they would be represented.

The simplest approach would be to capture "Aus cf. bus Smith" in the
<NameSimple>, but then how would you represent <NameDetailed>?

Rich


-----Original Message-----
From: tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
[mailto:tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org]On Behalf Of Paul Kirk
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 8:43 PM
To: tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
Subject: Re: [tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain


They should be in TCS. I have hundreds of these in the British Fungi
database and I've resisted the temptation to add them to Index Fungorum;
they are accounted for in the checklist of British Fungi but for convenience
they are treated as taxonomic synonyms of the generic name, i.e. equivalent
to Aus sp. = 'it's Aus but I'm not sure which species'.  The name as used in
the original source is retained, of course, but subject to the usual
documented editorial conventions. For example, CF, cf, cf., CF., cfr, CFR,
aff., etc are all edited to cf. for consistency in displaying (and searching
for)these data.

Paul



From: tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org on behalf of Richard Pyle
Sent: Mon 18/04/2005 01:54
To: tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
Subject: [tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain




Greetings,

I've been thinking a lot about how to represent vernacular and
semi-scientific names in TCS/LC.

TCS currently accomodates two "types" of Names: "scientific" and
"non-scientific".  Presumably, LC is intended to represent the "scientific"
(code-governed) names.

But there are name representations that are not vernacular, and are not
strictly scientific.

For example, I often encounter in scientific literature examples such as the
following:

- Aus bus Smith
- Aus cf. bus Smith

So, within one publication (say, "Jones"), we have two different concepts.
One is straighforward:

Aus bus Smith SEC. Jones

There is a concept circumscription, and the elements of the name are easily
handled by LC.

But how would TCS/LC deal with the other concept:

Aus cf. bus Smith SEC. Jones

The "cf." implies that it's like Aus bus Smith, and the fact that it is
listed spearately from "true" Aus bus implies that it is *not* Aus bus.

The "cf." designation is only one of many -- so I'm not just talking about
"cf." -- I'm talking about any case where a concept that lacks a formal
scientific name is referenced by a modified/embellished/qualified version of
a formal scientific name.  There are clearly two different concepts, which
may have any of the various includes/congruent/etc. relationships with other
concepts, but the *name* part is a mixture of scientific elements and
non-scientific (non-Code-governed) elements.

My question is:  Should LC accomodate these various "qualified scientific
names" and treat them as separate name objects? Or, is this something that
should be dealt with just like any non-scientific (vernacular) name?
Or...????

There is also a whole world of "unnamed" scientific names (e.g., "Aus
n.sp.#8"), which are applied to concepts in exactly the same way that
scientific names are applied to concepts (but outside the Code rules), which
fall into a similar category as the "qualified" scientific names.

Ideas?

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/pylerichard.html




_______________________________________________
Tcs-lc mailing list
Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc