[tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain

[Richard Pyle]

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

I agree this is the most often use of "cf.", and I agree when it is used in
the context of an identification, it's not a concept issue. But this is
specifically not what I was talking about in my original query.  I'm talking
about cases where it is clear that an author has a distinct concept in
mind -- which is why I showed the example of "Aus bus" and "Aus cf. bus"
listed in the same publication. I meant it in the case where the author
clearly acknowledges two concepts, one fits is concept that includes the
holotype of an existing name; one is similar, but different, and does not
include the holotype of any existing name.

Maybe my example of "cf." was not the best (I picked it because I was
working on a dataset that included them in the concept sense).  A clearer
example would be "Aus sp.1 [similar to A. bus]".  Basically -- any situation
where an author clearly attempts to represent a distinct concept, for which
no holotype of an existing name is circumscribed, and attempts to represent
a "Linnean-like" name that does not conform to Code rules.

Aloha,
Rich