[tcs-lc] Next 4 days...

[Richard Pyle]

> I think taking all three levels  above into account is a
> necessity. I am not
> sure how any reasoning under option:
>
> "B. Name=GenusProtonym+TerminalEpithetProtonym combination
> (Botanical perspective(?); 6 distinct "Names" represented, the others
> representing alternative usage contexts and orthographic variations)."

Basically, the specific epithet of a trinomial would be handled in a similar
fashion to how infrageneric names are dealt with in LC.  But it's messier
than that...

> would work, I believe in Zoology it is legal to have the same
> subspecies name
> in different species within a genus, or not?

No.  In fact, unlike Botany, we treat infraspecific names as homonyms if
they are in the same genus.

For example:

Aus bus Smith
Aus cus Jones
Aus bus Smith subsp. dus Brown
Aus cus Jones subsp. dus Pyle

[dus Brown and dus Pyle being different names, with different protologues,
etc.]

In zoology, the last two are considered as Homonyms (not allowed). Are they
allowed in Botany?

Is this what you were asking?

> Can you have Genus spec1 subsp. alba, Genus spec2 subsp. alba?

No -- not even if "alba" is a diffent name with different
protonym/protologue/etc.

> > But the important thing is that we all agree on how to define a
> "Name", and
> > design the schema accordingly.
>
> We had some previous discussions on the wiki about what a "Name" is. I am
> willing to concede that a name in many senses is without the author or
> publication reference, e.g. when talking about homonyms = same-names.

The authorship, and qualifiers (aff., cf., etc.), and other stuff is a whole
'nother level of this conversation.  Before we even go there, I would like
to pin down the basic A-D distinction of my earlier email.

> However, by including the concept of protonyms, implicitly you
> define a name-
> with-citation,

I think of it more as name-with-primary-type-specimen.  It doesn't matter
who the authors are -- what matters is whether two names are homotypic or
heterotypic. The only exception is Nom.Nov. (replacement names), where I
would treat them both as separate protonyms.  I think of authorship &
publication details more as attributes (properties) of a Name object -- not
definitive elements.

> where citation is out of author, year,
> publication, as much as
> the respective code requires to make the object unique. The
> "nomenclatural name
> object" is a combination of 1 to three uninomials or epithets
> together with the
> citation.

I guess I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by "together the citation".
For a trinomial, I see four citations: GenusPublication, SpeciesPublication,
SubspeciesPublication, CombinationPublication.

> I belief if you have homonyms, you cannot put the LSID on a level
> that combines
> the homonyms. Homonyms are not known a priori, but detected. So
> each of the
> homonymic nomenclatural objects needs its own LSID (or other GUID).

If you mean that a pair of homonyms should get separate GUIDs, I agree
completely!

> Assume two people create
>
> Concept1 based on: Genus speciesname1 Author1
> Concept2 based on: Genus speciesname1 Author2
>
> not knowing the the two nomenclatural objects are homonymic, this
> must then at
> a LATER time be resolved by appropriate mapping of nomenclatural
> and concept
> IDs.

By "speciesname1", I assume you mean in both cases there is identical
"string-of-text-characters"?  So, the point being, you don't know if these
represent a pair of homonyms, or a case where one of the Concept authors
simply got the name author wrong.  Or...?

Rich