[tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
David Remsen (GBIF)
dremsen at gbif.org
Sat Jun 12 22:49:49 CEST 2010
Pete -
This statement has been sticking with me since I read it. It might
be me but I don't see any relationship between that statement and how
this relates to taxon concepts. In a concept-based system you could
easily have two different maps for Puma concolor. Whether Felis
concolor is included is not relevant because nomenclatural synonyms
have no bearing on the circumscription. They are both names for the
same type.
There may be two different concepts (circumscriptions) published for
Aedes triseriatus. It could be quite legit for a different
(objective synonym only) name like Oclerotatus triseriatus to refer to
that same concept. So in that sense, there is a rationale for
different scientific names to be able to reference the same concept to
meet that requirement of the example you cite. But in zoology these
examples aren't even considered different names and the rule of
priority would prevent truly different (heterotypic names) from
referring to the same type so the use cases for different scientific
names being able to refer to a single concept ID are quite limited.
Mapping objective (homotypic) synonymy provides the basis for
providing a single map for those examples you cite but it's not using
true concept-based principles.
Best,
David
>
> Frankly I think it would be an improvement if we could get maps etc
> that combine Aedes triseriatus / Ochlerotatus triseriatus into one
> map and Felis concolor and Puma concolor into a different single
> map. :-)
>
> Respectfully,
>
> - Pete
>
>
>
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list