[Tcs-lc] Taxonomic order anyone?

[Richard Pyle]

I agree with almost everything in Greg's post, with the possible exception
of this nitpick:

> However a generic solution such as TCS  needs, as we have heard, to deal
> with ambiregnal taxa, multiple relationships between the same two
> concepts (a Genus and its type species )

I don't see how a relationship between a genus and its type species
consitutes an example of multiple relationships between the same two
concepts.  I see one concept-concept relationship:

	GenusConcept includes type-speciesconcept

...and one name-name relationship:

	GenusName is typified by type-speciesname

I'm not sure how it works in ICBN, but in ICZN, Article 61.1.2
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=61
makes it clear that the type of a genus is ultimately the type-specimen of
the type-species (not the the full concept circumscription of the
type-species).  Thus, there is no concept-concept relationship between a
genus-name and its type-species-name (in Zoology, at least).


> As long as we can categorize
> relationships as either being within a classification (intra) or between
> (inter) classifications, and differentiate between associations that are
> either nomenclatural or taxonomic, our Schema will be both useful and
> re-usable.

This I agree with completely.

> Some time ago I made the suggestion of a nomenclatural change from
> "taxonConcept"  to "Concept" - Roger suggested "Taxon" - because I would
> also like to use TCS to document concepts such as "White-Box woodland",
> in part defined in terms of included taxa.  We might stretch the "taxon"
> concept to cover the elements within a classification of ecological
> communities but the possibilities are endless?

I'd never considered using TCS to define "EcoConcepts".  My brain is already
too full to consider the implications....but if this sort of generic
approach is  desired, I would at least suggest "BioConcept".  The word
"concept", by itself, has too many homonyms.

Aloha,
Rich