[tcs-lc] Next 4 days...

[Richard Pyle]

> 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, I meant the parenthetical to be an infrageneric name (e.g., subgenus).

> 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 ;-)

Funny -- because from my perspective, ICBN mixes too much taxonomy with its
nomenclature (i.e., treating a different classification as though it was
really a different name!) :-)

We certainly could do it in a Code-dependant way, but actually I don't think
we necessarily have to be Code specific.  We could do it the zoological way,
and very easily produce name-strings with appropriate botanical authorships
(provided we have elements for Combination Author -- which LC does).  Or, we
could also do it the botanical way, and just treat zoological names the same
way as if the combinations were different "names".

Or, we could do what is probably the smartest solution and treat each unique
combination of Monomial/GenusName[+SpeciesEpithet[+InfreaSpecificEpithet]]
(where bracketed elements are optional) as a distinct name-unit (assuming
that each of the three subunits is thought of as a protonym reference,
rather than as an orthographic string of characters).

But the important thing is that we all agree on how to define a "Name", and
design the schema accordingly.

Rich