[tcs-lc] Rich & Nico dissecting nomenclatural acts and relationhips

[Richard Pyle]

>    Rich went through my list of currently 249 terms describing
> nomenclatural acts and relationships with or without potential concept
> implications.

Not quite....that I flagged them as "Name" does not mean that I necessarily
considered them to be "without potential concept implications".  That phrase
is very broad, and there is no doubt that many nomenclatural acts will have
"implications" for concepts.  My point was to distinguish between elements
that contributed to the definition of Name-Objects, from those that
contributed to the definition of Concept objects.

>    According to Rich's view, up to 93 of the 249 terms have vaguely
> conceptual implications; but only 26 definitely. Rich regards the
> typification processes as "determinations,"

...by which I mean that typification events involve the application of a
name to a specimen.  I use the word "Determination" for the same thing that
others (e.g. Jessie) use the word "Identification" for. All
Determination/Identification events can contribute to the definition of a
concept circumscription ("Vouchers", as represented in the TCS).  A subset
of these Determination/Identification events involve the assignment of a
"Type status".  Only a few of these Type-status Determination/Identification
events have direct implications for [Name-objects] (i.e. those that involve
primary types such as Holo-, Lecto-, Neo-, and Syn-).

> whereas these fall under the
> "subjective" definition I sent out for discussion before. Under my own
> count, up to 86 of the 249 terms are "subjective/conceptual." So we are
> not that far away from one another.

As I commented in the email that accompanied my sending of the edited Excel
file to this list, I noticed a pretty good correlation between your
Subjective/Objective distinction, and my Name/Concept distinction.

> I almost certain that no two experts
> would think exactly the same about how to slice up this list. However
> many would be reasonably close to each other.

I think there are going to be a few that we need to discuss (e.g., Hybrids),
but I don't think they will form the basis of any major contention.  My
biggest problem with some of them are that I didn't quite understand what
the term/relationship was, and/or it's a term/relationship that only applies
to the ICBN code.

>    I think this exercise helps drive home the point that the rules of
> nomenclature are complex and not without taxonomic implications. Drawing
> a clear and simple line between LC vs. TCS (each in their purest form)
> is not something the Codes would let us do easily.

I think the Codes will serve as guides -- but will not be the definitive
distinction.  For example, Codes don't go above the rank of Family, but Name
objects and concepts certainly go higher than that.  Also, we have to be
clear about Code "rules" vs. Code "Recommendations".  Also, we need to be
clear about "implications".  There are lots of "implications" that
publication objects have for both taxon concepts and name objects, but that
doesn't mean that the schema should embed concepts within publications, or
vice-versa.  I think what we need to focus on here is an optimal schema
structure.  In my mind, such a structure would have a (mostly) unambiguous
distinction between data elements that are properties of taxonomic names,
and data elements that are properties of taxonomic concept circumscriptions.

> Maybe then, we're
> back in the realm of practicality and visions (see other threads), but
> in the meantime I hope we know a bit more about nomenclature's soft
> taxonomic underbelly.

Not sure I understand what that measn, exactly, but it sounds kinda cool....
:-)

> Rich's take on the 249 terms::

Did everyone get the email I sent to this list with the modified Excel file
attached (March 04)?  I sent it to this list, and I *think* I got it back
from this list.  But Nico didn't receive it, so manybe nobody did.  If
that's the case, I should re-send, because it might account for a bit of the
miscommunication we seem to continue to have.

Aloha,
Rich