[tcs-lc] RE: [SEEK-Taxon] RE: LC/TCS - How many schemas?

[Kennedy, Jessie]

>I believe that *any* use of a scientific name carries with it that the
>concept it is intended to represent encompasses the primary 
>type specimen;
>whether or not a specific reference to the name-bearing type 
>is included
>within the usage.  The exceptions to this are "misidentifications" (as
>distinct from subjective taxonomic judgments).  In my mind, a
>misidentification is an instance when the person who used the 
>name, would
>not have included the primary type specimen of that name within the
>circumscription of the concept that the name was used to 
>represent. 

agree

>
>> Hence all homotypic names should, other things being equal, 
>carry the same
>concept.

I've been convinced this is not necessarily the case - but of course it would simplify things if everybody agreed it always was the case. If a taxonomist "moves a species from one genus to another" during a revision there may be some conceptual changes which have taken place (either in terms of the description or circumscription of specimens) but as the code (as you point out) is only interested in the type then we may have a homotypic relationship because they have the same type but not necessarily in my understanding of things does this imply they will *always* be congruent in terms of the concept.

>
>I think this also needs qualification:  They should only carry the same
>concept in a concurrent context.  If name "A" is a homotypic 
>synonym of Name
>"B", then any particular usage of name "A" should 
>automatically be assumed
>to have a precisely congruent concept with the name "B" *in 
>the context of
>the same usage*. 

not clear what you mean by the same usage.....

> There really
>should never be a situation of a "contains/contained in" or "overlaps"
>between two homotypic synonyms.
>
not if homotypic synonym only implies the type

>Having said that, we should also acknowledge that Author "X" 
>might use name
>"A" for one concept circumscription, and Author "Y" might use 
>the same name
>"A" to represent a *different* concept circumscription.  As 
>long as both
>concept circumscriptions overlap minimally at the primary type 
>specimen,
>then these are both Code-compliant, subjectively different 
>concepts; neither
>of which is a misidentification.  While "A SEC. X" should in 
>all cases be a
>congruent concept with "B SEC. X" (and similarly "A SEC. Y" should be
>congruent with "B SEC. Y"), it is NOT the case that "A SEC. X" is
>necessarily congruent with "B SEC. Y".
>

so an author will never change his opinion as to the concept associated with any name? I'm led to believe again that just as different people have different opinions the same person can change his/her mind over time as they learn more....

>The point is:
>IF
>	A & B are homotypic names
>  AND
>	"A Sec. X" circumscribes a different scope of
>	organisms (different taxonomic concept) than "B SEC. Y"
>THEN
>	"A Sec. X" is NOT congruent with "B SEC. Y", even though
>	both names are homotypic.
>
>Perhaps this is what you meant by "other things being equal"?  
>If so, then
>as Walter also pointed out, I think that (in zoology, at 
>least) there will
>be many, MANY more than 0.0001% of cases where all things are 
>*not* equal.
>
>> This is one part of what LC is about because the concept 
>doesn't have to
>be defined.
>
>-- or even implied.

but from this discussion and Nico's analysis of "nomenclatural relationships" it seems very hard not to infer concepts...
>
>The only thing special about the "Original Concept" (the 
>concept used by the
>author who first established/proposed a code-compliant name) is that it
>anchors the name to a type specimen 

AND there is a description (in any good taxonomic work!) of what the author thinks that type specimen is a representative of - I think this is quite important if we are ever to understand legacy data to look at how for example the distribution of species (or other taxa) has changed over time. As several taxonomists have said to me - who goes and looks at a type specimen when doing an identification - virtually no-one they rely on the description - only the taxonomists doing the classification usually look at the type specimens (this is not to say type specimens aren't important - I believe they are - but more to say that the original description associated with the name is equally important to people as (part of) the definition of that name.

>
>So, yes -- all authors of protologues had a concept (circle) 
>in mind when
>they established a new name (basionym) -- but how the borders 
>of that circle
>were defined by the basionym author have no bearing whatsoever on
>Code-mandated rules of nomenclature (except that the primary 
>type specimen
>"dot" must be somewhere within the circle). 

agree but it doesn't mean it's not important and it doesn't mean that you have to separate them out and deal with them independently.....because as Nico is trying to show there are many subjective calls (i.e. concept related issues ) in nomenclatural relationships.

>This is why I have continued to emphasize in various 
>discussion groups that
>"Aus bus Smith" is NOT the same as "Aus bus Smith SEC. Smith". 
> The former
>is a name object, whose only connection with the biological 
>world is via the
>primary type specimen (i.e., its anchored to a dot).  The latter is a
>concept object, which represents the "circle" that Smith drew 
>around the
>type-specimen dot (and many other dots that were not the type 
>specimen) for
>the name that he first established. The former is in the 
>domain of LC, the
>latter is in the domain of TCS outside of LC.
>
BUT your former could not have existed without the latter so I'd questioned allowing it to exist on its own (a weak entity if you like!)(in some implementations you could do this for efficiency - but that's a separate argument)

>The LC name object "Aus bus Smith" is a re-usable object for many TCS
>concept objects, of which "Aus bus Smith SEC. Smith" is but 
>one.  The same
>name object can be re-used for all of these concept objects:
>
>- Aus bus Smith SEC. Smith
>- Aus bus Smith SEC. Jones
>- Aus bus Smith SEC. Brown

this is simply one way to model it - and expressed like this of course it looks sensible - but there are many other issues to consider - including the complexity of the schema if you want to model all you might want to say about name objects. (almost as complexly as concepts - there would be very little in the TCS you wouldn't need to model so the schema would be twice as complex and users would need to be very careful about what info they put where - I'll address the issue of LC simplicity versus complexity in another email)

>
>One of the fundamental issues that we need to formally resolve 
>is how to
>deal with new combinations, such as "Xus bus (Smith) Pyle".
>
>In the botanical view, this would represent a distinct name 
>object from "Aus
>bus Smith".  So you would have the following (elaborated) 
>Concept objects:
>
>- Xus bus (Smith) Pyle SEC. Pyle
>  (secondarily pointing to "Aus bus Smith" name object as basionym)
>
>- Xus bus (Smith) Pyle SEC. Kirk
>  (secondarily pointing to "Aus bus Smith" name object as basionym)
>
>In my view (which I think is more reflective of zoological 
>practice), it
>makes for better information management logic to *not* treat "Xus bus
>(Smith) Pyle" as a distinct name object from "Aus bus Smith", and
>secondarily flag Pyle's usage of Smith's "bus" as the first 
>one to combine
>it with the genus "Xus".  Thus, we would have elaborated 
>concepts that look
>more like this:
>
>- Aus bus Smith SEC. Pyle
>  (secondarily pointing to "Xus SEC. Pyle" as the "parent",
>  from which the combination name "Xus bus (Smith) Pyle" is
>  calculated, and flagging as the "first use" of the combination)
>
>- Aus bus Smith SEC. Kirk
>  (secondarily pointing to "Xus SEC. Kirk"  as the "parent",
>  from which the combination name "Xus bus (Smith) Pyle" is
>  calculated)
>
>I have to confess that writing out as I did above doesn't, at 
>face value,
>lend support to my contention that this represent "better information
>management logic" -- but I think that's an artifact of how I chose to
>elaborate it. 


agree I don't like you way of presenting it ;-)

I would say that there is a concept Aus bus Smith SEC Smith (which happens to have a "simple name element" Aus bus Smith)

we then have a new concept 
Xus bus (Smith) Pyle SEC. Pyle
which has a relationship to Aus bus SEC Smith declaring it to be a new combination
and whatever other relationships are appropriate.

we then have another new concept
Xus bus (Smith) Pyle SEC. Kirk
which has an appropriate relationship to Xus bus (Smith) Pyle SEC. Pyle

anyone interested in following name changes can track back through the history of relationships. They can choose to print only the name elements if they want and the relationships between them....

>
>The reasons why I favor the latter approach include:
>- Fewer name objects overall (i.e., only the basionyms; not all the
>subsequent combinations), and therefore name objects are more 
>"reusable".

not convinced about this. If you include any usages where usage includes in my mind identifications then possibly but I think that's different.

>
>- More consistent logic of hierarchy (i.e., same rules can be 
>applied all
>the way from Kingdom to infrasubspecific taxa)

can't see your way any more consistent than what TCS has suggested.
>
>- More direct connection between "Aus bus Smith" and "Xus bus 
>(Smith) Pyle"
>as being homotypic.

what can be more direct than finding the "original" concept with name element = "Aus bus Smith" and the "original" concept with name element = "Xus bus 
(Smith) Pyle" and finding that there is a homotypic synonymy relationship between them?

>
>That last point, I think, is the most important one -- because 
>it seems to
>me to be a MUCH more fundamental piece of nomenclatural 
>information that
>"'Aus bus Smith' and 'Xus bus (Smith) Pyle' are homotypic", 
>than the fact
>that "Pyle was the first author to place the species epithet 
>established as
>'Aus bus' by Smith into the genus 'Xus'".  Treating "Xus bus 
>(Smith) Pyle"
>as a name object distinct from "Aus bus Smith" places more emphasis on
>acknowledging that Pyle was the first to use this combination, than it
>places on acknowledging that the name "Xus bus" as used by 
>Pyle is homotypic
>with name "Aus bus" as used by Smith. I would rather make sure we
>communicate the latter piece of information, than the former.
>

so have them as concepts with a homotypic relationship between them if appropriate

Jessie

PS: I'm really impressed if you managed to get to the end of this - I nearly gave up several times and you're probably wishing I had.... ;-)