[tcs-lc] Next 4 days...

Paul Kirk p.kirk at cabi.org
Tue Mar 15 23:57:11 PST 2005


six name objects; twelve concept objects - 9 & 11 (and 10 & 12) are not names in Botanical Nomenclature. 13-16 are not names but concepts (taxonomic opinions), assuming the string in parentheses represents an infrageneric (supraspecific) epithet. Yes, we should settle the question of what constitutes a name but it will have to be Code specific because of the way the ICZN mixes (IMHO) too much taxonomy with its nomenclature ;-)

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pyle
To: tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
Sent: 16/03/05 07:39
Subject: [tcs-lc] Next 4 days...


Hi All,

I presume that some version of TCS will be submitted to TDWG on March
20th -- correct?  Jessie -- could you provide a short synopsis of what
you
expect that version to look like?  Will it be more like v0.85, or more
like
v0.90? Or maybe v0.88? Will you make any changes to Kingdom or Rank
elements? I know there will still be time to make changes during the
next
60(?) days, but you ought to at least grab the low-hanging fruit (i.e.,
the
things we all seem to agree on, like changing Kingdom to NomenCode)
before
submitting.

These questions aside, I think that it is important to settle on the
unit of
a "Name".  In the context of LC, the question is "What is a fundamental
unit
of a Name Object?"  In the context of TCS, the question is "What sorts
of
usages will warrant an Original Concept, and a corresponding Nominal
Concept?"

Drawing from the example dataset located on the TCS Wiki:

http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/tdwg/index.php?pagename=TCSAndTheLinneanCore

(plus a few inventions of my own), we can consider these candidates:

1)  Aus L.
2)  Xus Pargiter
3)  Aus aus L.
4)  Aus bea Archer
5)  Xus aus (L.) Smith
6)  Xus bea (Archer) Pargiter
7)  Aus beus Archer
8)  Xus beus (Archer) Pargiter
9)  Aus aus L. bea Archer
10) Aus aus L. beus Archer
11) Xus aus (L.) Smith bea (Archer) Pargiter
12) Xus aus (L.) Smith beus (Archer) Pargiter

In a world where Name-objects are treated as top-level objects, how many
name-GUIDs are represented above?

In a world where Names remain as attributes of Concept-objects, how many
different Original Concepts are represented above?

I'm only focusing on the Name entity -- there are no concept
circumscriptions implied above (i.e., no need to consider "SEC."
authors).

I think that everyone would agree that candidates 1, 2, 3 and 4 each
represent distinct name objects.  Candidates 1 & 2 are treated
nomenclaturally in the Genus group, and numbers 2 and three are treated
nomenclaturally in the species group.



More information about the Tcs-lc mailing list