[tcs-lc] Is nomenclatural type assingment taxonomic/concept based
Nico Franz
franz at nceas.ucsb.edu
Mon Mar 7 11:16:29 PST 2005
Hi Gregor:
An act of lectotypification, for example, requires that someone makes
a judgment about the identity of the original type specimen /in relation
to/ the one that is then assigned lectotype status. I thought this kind
of comparative study of specimens might have a different quality than
pure literature assessments (e.g. nomen nudum). Whenever there are
judgments involving at least one name and two or more specimens I
understand these assessments to be "subjective" in the ICZN sense. And
"subjective" suggests that a concept approach is justified.
My main point was that it is not trivial to go through all the terms
and acts prescribed by the Codes and make such objective/subjective
distinctions. A first personal attempt to do this is attached as a
spreadsheet.
I was meaning to say that, practicality issues aside (see the
Jessie-Rich-Sally-Roger-Gregor etc. threads), there are valid
first-principle arguments for looking at the Codes as prescribing
"Concepts Light" in numerous cases. In my view the "new typification
acts" fall into this category. Quoting ICZN (p. 83): "Recommendation
74A. Agreement with previous restriction. In designating a lectotype, in
order to preserve stability of nomenclature an author should act
consistently with, and in any event should give great weight to,
previously accepted taxonomic restrictions of the application of the name."
If it turns out that some "Code-prescribed acts" are open to (or even
require) such a conceptual reading, how do we treat them in the TCS-LC
context?
Best,
Nico
Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
>I cannot see whether someone else has responded to Nicos question of types
>(argument for wiki... :-) )
>
>Nico writes:
>
>"I have a few questions. Do this Objective/Subjective distinction help us? Is
>it feasible and desirable to have one schema handle some name relationships
>(homotypic ones) that are prescribed in the Codes but not others (heterotypic
>situations)? And what about the long list of [para/iso/ex/plasto/epi/lecto/...]
>typifications which clearly reflect taxonomic judgment?"
>
>Gregor: Can you elaborate that? I think I disagree. Like almost any
>nomenclatural statement, some judgement (knowledge of true publication dates,
>rules of nomenclature and assessement whether these are followed is involved. I
>believe that assessing the kind of type that a specimen is in relation to a
>nomenclatural name falls into the same category. This category in my think is
>very different from heterotypic synonmyization based on the opinions about the
>extent of a taxon circumscription concept.
>
>Gregor----------------------------------------------------------
>Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
>Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
>Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
>Königin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
>14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203
>
>_______________________________________________
>tcs-lc mailing list
>tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
>http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TCSCodePrescribedRelationships1.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 81920 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/tcs-lc/attachments/20050307/7bb1e440/TCSCodePrescribedRelationships1.xls
More information about the Tcs-lc
mailing list