[tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain

[Martin Pullan]

I have to agree with Bob Peet here. Terms like cf. aff. sp. etc. Only
indicate a degree of uncertainty in an identification. At best they may
indicate a potential area for the development of a new concept but do
not represent one. 

Another way of looking at the confusion of concept with identification
is to see it in terms of a confusion between representation and
application of a concept. 

So to represent a determination/identification it should not be
necessary to make a representation of the taxon concept being applied in
order to do so. A simple pointer to somewhere where the concept is
defined would suffice and the representation of the concept could exist
outside of the document representing the specimen being determined. The
degree of uncertainty aff. Etc. is then an attribute of the link. 

Cheers,
Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
[mailto:tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org] On Behalf Of Robert K. Peet
Sent: 18 April 2005 12:13
To: Richard Pyle
Cc: tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
Subject: Re: [tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain


I believe we are once again confusing concept with identification.
Whenever I see "cf." or "aff." I think identification rather than new
concept.

Bob Peet


On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Richard Pyle wrote:

>
> 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
>

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