[Tcs-lc] concepts of Higher taxa
Nico Franz
franz at nceas.ucsb.edu
Thu Mar 31 11:16:16 PST 2005
Hi all:
Maybe another way to look at it is as follows. In a "concept world"
it is difficult to be neutral about speaker roles. An expert either
identifies herself as asserting something, or she identifies someone
else stating something that is acceptable to her. But she couldn't just
assert something altogether without identifying anyone who vouches for
that perspective. Given this setting, it's perhaps natural to first
think "well, we have to have mechanisms so that experts can claim
authorship of an opinion." But on the other hand, it is also useful to
be able to say "this is where my work ends, if you want more, please
refer to..."
In practice it certainly happens that someone describes a new species
but is otherwise perfectly happy with a preexisting definition for the
genus or at least the family in which it is placed. In order to model
current practice (whether we like it or not), it ought to possible for
that expert to say "I am authoring this species, but I'd like it to have
some kind of connection to an existing higher-level concept, since I
don't claim to work at that level." Now our task is to (1) specify how
to achieve that kind of connection (new relationship assertion, maybe
also a status assignment ["I accept the existing higher-level
concept"]), and also likely (2) to prepare the existing higher-level
concept for such connectability down the road, perhaps even if it's
original author didn't foresee that.
If that sounds too involving, the alternative is to connect the new
lower-level concept to a higher-level name. In some sense we'd be losing
information here, but in another sense we'd be maintaining a less
promiscuous concept world.
Regardless of which option is taken at a time, there have to be
obvious ways for individual working experts to say "this is where I stop
and someone else's view (or a name) takes over."
Nico
Martin Pullan wrote:
> Actually the mixing of taxonomy and nomeclature was deliberate
> although I now regret having removed a sentence regarding my concerns
> over suggesting that the higher taxon concept and not just the name of
> higher taxon should be cited when publishing a new member
> taxon. Primarily this is because such a change would indeed further
> erode the supposed distinction between nomenclature and classification
> embodied in the codes. However we have to face the fact that the
> binomial naming system in itself creates this confusion. The binomial
> naming system and the various codes governing them were invented prior
> to the development of explicitly concept oriented taxonomy and before
> the idea of multiple legitimate taxon concepts all bearing the same
> name had been concieved.
>
> If we wish to remove the confusion created by binomial names then IMHO
> we have to make the change to the codes and accept the erosion of the
> separation between nomenclature and classification. By requiring the
> author to identify the higher taxon concept they are expanding when
> publishing a new member we would then be forcing them to perform "the
> specific act of inclusion" and a new concept of the higher taxon would
> be automatically created. This, however, would be a version of the
> higher taxon concept sec. the author of the new member taxon and not
> sec. the author of the original higher taxon concept. As far as I can
> see if we don't adopt this approach the whole thing becomes unmanageable.
>
> I am starting to wonder if the disagreement is centered around the
> sequencing of concept development. I think there are two possible
> points of view :
>
> 1) Higher taxon concepts are developed in a strict linear sequence and
> any new member taxa always extends the newest higher taxon concept in
> the sequence.
>
> 2) Higher taxon concepts are developed in a non-linear sequence
> with branches created whenever a new revision (as opposed to just
> adding a new member taxon in isolation) of the higher taxon is
> undertaken. Once such a branch in the sequence is created each arm of
> the "tree" develops in its own independent linear sequence and new
> members can be independently added to any branch.
>
> As you may have guessed I think the latter model is a truer reflection
> of reality and as such I do not think that it can be assumed that the
> addition of a new member to a higher taxon expands all simiiar higher
> taxon concepts.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> Dr. Martin Pullan
>
> The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
>
> Web site: http://www.rbge.org.uk
>
> Phone: (+44) 0131 248 2908
>
> Fax: (+44) 0131 248 2901
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
> [mailto:tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Kirk
> *Sent:* 31 March 2005 11:49
> *To:* tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Tcs-lc] concepts of Higher taxa
>
> It's difficult to dissect the paragraph below because it's a fair
> mix of nomenclature and taxonomy but here are a few comments. The
> first sentence here is what prompted my question (perhaps off
> list) last week which was how do nomenclators decide which parent
> (genus) a species belongs to when generic homonym are involved;
> the protologue of the species may contain this information but I
> suspect that it has not always been captured. So, there may be
> multiple concepts for two reasons - nomenclature and taxonomy. The
> Code cannot be changed to require the latter be defined for this
> is taxonomy and outside the Code, and it may not be necessary to
> change it for the former reason as there are no nomenclatural
> consequences, IMO, of this uncertainty. I think the 'specific act
> of inclusion' referred to is answered in the previous sentence -
> use of the binomial system - for the act of publishing a binomial
> must either change the existing generic concept or, if we all
> accept that concepts when published (do we have an
> unambiguous definition of the word published? - not lifted from
> the Code I hope!) immutable, create a new one.
>
> Paul
>
> -----------------------------
> To my understanding at the moment it is not necessary to identify
> the specific concept of the genus one is using when publishing a
> new species. Therefore when there exist mulitple concepts of a
> genus it is not possible to determine which genus concept is being
> expanded by the publication of the new species. This could be a
> case for requesting a change in the codes such that the specific
> concept being used must be identified when publishing a new name.
> However, as it stands at the moment, the publication of a species
> within a genus is a purely nomenclatural exercise required to
> satisfy the demands of the binomial naming system and has no
> influence whatsoever on any existing concepts of the genus. In
> order for a new species to be incorporated into a generic concept
> a specific act of inclusion must be performed at which point a new
> generic concept is created.
>
> Martin
>
> Dr. Martin Pullan
>
> The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
>
> Web site: http://www.rbge.org.uk
>
> Phone: (+44) 0131 248 2908
>
> Fax: (+44) 0131 248 2901
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
> [mailto:tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Kirk
> *Sent:* 31 March 2005 07:32
> *To:* tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Tcs-lc] concepts of Higher taxa
>
> I disagree; publication of a new species always changes the
> circumscription of the genus! Since at least one components
> which define the genus when the new species is described (the
> new species) have changed
>
> Consider these hypothetical examples:
>
> Genus Aus Smith SEC. [everyone up to now] has species with
> flowers that are red or yellow; a new species by Jones has
> blue flowers thus genus Aus Smith SEC. Jones has a new
> circumscription.
>
> Genus Aus Smith SEC. [everyone up to now] has sequence data
> represented by GenBank acc. numbers 1234, 1238, 1239 ...; a
> new species by Jones have sequence data represented by GenBank
> acc number 2375 thus genus Aus Smith SEC. Jones has a new
> circumscription.
>
> I am not sure how anyone can say the cicumscription of the
> genus has not changed, unless we are using different
> definitions (concepts) of the words we use to communicate -
> often a problem as we all know too well ;-)
>
> pAUL
>
> > 2) I also believe that it is erroneous to consider that the
> pubication
> > of new species constitutes an expansion of of the existing
> concepts of
> > the higher taxon to which they are stated to belong.
>
> In my view, it may or may not. Whether or not the publication
> of a new species within a genus expands the genus concept in
> which it was placed (relative, e.g., to the concept intended
> by the original creation of the genus name) depends on
> subjective judgement. In most cases, I suspect that it does
> not (should not) alter the genus circumscription.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tcs-lc mailing list
>Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
>http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc
>
>
More information about the Tcs-lc
mailing list