[tdwg-content] DwC taxonomic terms

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks Markus -- this is very helpful.  I'll need to wrap my head around
what is meant.  However, it would be useful if you or someone could show me
how I would populate a DwC record for the sample I gave:

Specimen BPBM 13492. 
Last identified as "Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933".  
We (provider) treat this species is as a synonym of "Centropyge fisheri
(Snyder 1904)".  
The original description "fisheri" by Snyder (1904) placed it in the genus
"Holacanthus".

I'll take a look at the example, and see if I can understand from that.

Thanks,
Rich
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Markus Döring (GBIF)" [mailto:mdoering at gbif.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:03 AM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] DwC taxonomic terms
> 
> Rich,
> as usual no time to write a long mail, but I wanted to 
> quickly respond to your 3 intended uses below.
> The idea is that everyone of them has a dwc:scientificName 
> term and potentially also the other terms you listed at the 
> end like rank.
> 
> originalTaxonNameID and acceptedTaxonID are still properties 
> of the described dwc:scientificName and act like foreign keys 
> linking one name/taxon to another. So if you have some sort 
> of synonym (indicated by dwc:taxonomicStatus) the 
> dwc:acceptedTaxonID will point to what is considered the 
> accepted taxon. While originalTaxonNameID will point to the 
> original name  record. The verbatim non ID versions of these 
> two terms do essentially the same, but are based on name 
> string matching.  
> They are not meant to replace the use of dwc:scientificName 
> in a record.
> 
> Maybe its best to look at the examples Dave put together:
> (the tax/nom status columns are subject to change)
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/gbif-ecat/wiki/GNAsynonymsExample
> 
> 
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 10, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Richard Pyle wrote:
> 
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > After a series of off-list conversations with Peter DeVries, Dave 
> > Remsen, and others; and thanks to John W. for pointing me to the 
> > active list of terms, I would like to offer some additional 
> thoughts 
> > on the "Core Taxon"
> > terms; but before I do, I want to make sure I understand how the 
> > existing terms are intended to be used.
> >
> >> From the perspective of an Occurrence (specimen/observation/etc.) 
> >> record
> > represented through DwC, it seems to me that there are 
> three sets of 
> > name/taxon terms:
> >
> > 1. "As Identified"
> > [Information about how the record is currently identified.]
> >
> > - scientificName
> > - scientificNameID
> > - scientificNameAuthorship
> > - taxonAccordingTo
> > - taxonAccordingToID
> >
> > 2. "As originally established"
> > [Information about the original name as established under the Code]
> >
> > - originalTaxonName
> > - originalTaxonNameID
> > - namePublishedIn
> > - namePublishedInID
> >
> > 3. "Opinion of Data Provider"
> > [Information about how the data provider interprets the 
> correct name.]
> >
> > - acceptedTaxon
> > - acceptedTaxonID
> >
> >
> > I'm not entirely certain which "set" of names the following terms 
> > would apply to:
> >
> > - rank
> > - verbatimRank
> > - higherTaxonName
> > - higherTaxonNameID
> > - higherClassification
> > - kingdom
> > - phylum
> > - class
> > - order
> > - family
> > - genus
> > - subgenus
> > - specificEpithet
> > - infraspecificEpithet
> >
> > According to the current draft spreadsheet 
> > 
> (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tZ3c04UGzRgalNxZMmcijcQ&output
> > =html
> > )
> > , it seems that the first two apply specifically to the 
> > "scientificName", and therefore belong in the first set (i.e., rank 
> > according to how it was identified; not necessarily how the Data 
> > Provider now treats it, or what the original rank was).  I 
> assume the 
> > rest all apply to "Opinion of Data Provider"; but this is not 
> > explicitly stated.
> >
> > For example, consider the specimen BPBM 13492. It was most recently 
> > identified as "Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933".  Our 
> > current treatment of this species is as a junior synonym of 
> > "Centropyge fisheri (Snyder 1904)".  The original description 
> > "fisheri" by Snyder (1904) placed it in the genus "Holacanthus".
> >
> > I'm assuming that I would present this record via DwC using 
> the above 
> > terms as follows:
> >
> > 1. As Identified:
> >
> > scientificName: Centropyge flavicauda
> > scientificNameID:
> > 
> http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget
> > .asp?s
> > pid=53548
> > scientificNameAuthorship: Fraser-Brunner 1933
> > taxonAccordingTo: Allen, G.R. 1980. Butterfly and 
> angelfishes of the 
> > world.
> > Volume II. Mergus Publishers. Pp. 149-352.
> > taxonAccordingToID:
> > 
> http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/getref.asp
> > ?id=22
> > 764
> >
> > 2. As originally established:
> >
> > - originalTaxonName: Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933
> > - originalTaxonNameID:
> > 
> http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget
> > .asp?s
> > pid=53548
> > - namePublishedIn: Fraser-Brunner, A. 1933. A revision of the 
> > chaetodont fishes of the subfamily Pomacanthinae. 
> Proceedings of the 
> > General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological 
> Society of 
> > London 1933 (pt 3, no.
> > 30): 543-599, Pl. 1.
> > - namePublishedInID:
> > 
> http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/getref.asp
> > ?id=67
> > 1
> >
> > 3. Opinion of Data Provider:
> >
> > acceptedTaxon: Centropyge fisheri
> > acceptedTaxonID:
> > 
> http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget
> > .asp?s
> > pid=53548
> >
> > If my assumptions are correct, then "specificEpithet" would be 
> > "fisheri", not "flavicauda" -- correct?
> >
> > Once I get a sense from this list whether I am interpreting 
> the terms 
> > correctly (or not), I'll offer some specific comments on the taxon 
> > terms.
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-content mailing list
> > tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>