[tdwg-content] DwC taxonomic terms

["Markus Döring (GBIF)"]

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