[tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain

[Richard Pyle]

> 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.

See my post just now in reply to Bob.  My intention was not to ask about
identification of specimens to concepts with uncertainty, but cases where
authors attempt to refer to real concepts that have not yet been formally
named.

Consider, for example, a publication that names a new species, and refers to
a second new species to be named in a later publication.

Smith (1999) publishes the description of the new species "Aus xus", and in
the publication he makes reference to the similarities with the
previously-named species "Aus bus", and also makes reference to another
undescribed species, "Aus n.sp.2 cf. xus", which is very similar to his new
species A. xus, but different enough that he specifically excludes it from
his concept circumscription for Aus xus.

A year later, Smith publishes the formal description of the second new
species as "Aus zus", and makes it clear that the concept is congruent with
"Aus n.sp.2 cf. xus SEC. Smith 1999".

Shouldn't TCS have the ability to map these two concepts as congruent?  Or
does Smith's use of "Aus n.sp.2 cf. xus" in his 1999 paper not rise to the
level of a "concept"?  But then if it doesn't rise to the level of a
"concept", when does *any* "non-scientific" name rise to the level of a
concept?  Iand if no "non-scieintific" names ever rise to the level of a
"concept", then why does TCS accomodate "non-scientific" names?

If TCS does intend to accomodate "non-scientific" names, then my original
question really is, for cases such as this ("Aus n.sp.2 cf. xus"), do we
treat them a "scientific" names, or as "non-scientific" names?

Aloha,
Rich