[tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 20, Issue 17

[Richard Pyle]

> For clarification, in cases like #1, we ARE allowing 
> one-to-many relationships between "composite" Individuals 
> and Identifications as long as those Identifications 
> represent differences of opinion about the common 
> taxon, or refinements to a lower taxonomic level 
> (e.g. I'm not capable or don't have time to determine 
> the lowest taxonomic level common to all of the 
> biological individuals in the jar, but later I am 
> able to find that out).  What we AREN'T allowing  
> is for subsets of the composite "Individual" that 
> belong to different lower level taxa to be identified 
> to those taxa without first separating them into 
> different Individuals.  I think I'm stating the 
> principle that Rich laid out correctly.

Yes, exactly.  But see also my reply to Dusty about the "Erebia youngi or
Erebia lafontainei" example.  I don't think this breaks the rule, because
it's still two competing and mutually exclusive assertions of taxonomic
identity -- just that happen to have been made by the same person at the
same time.
	
Aloha,
Rich