[tdwg-content] Does a species entail a specific classification or does it have many classifications.

[Peter DeVries]

Hi Rich,

The type specimen of the name "Centropyge fisheri" was collected in Hawaii.
>
> The type specimen of the name "Centropyge flavicauda" was collected at
> Macclesfield Banks, China Sea.
>
> Some treatments regard these as distinct species.  Some regard them as
> synonyms.  The name with priority is C. fisheri.
>
> Thus, the combination of genus and specific epithet "Centropyge fisheri"
> can
> therefore refer to at least two different concepts: one (sensu stricto) is
> the set of organisms in Hawaii; the other (sensu lato) is the set of
> organisms in Hawaii and the China Sea (and places in-between).
>


I am not familiar with the reasoning behind this example but the problem
starts when

*Centropyge fisheri* <= *Centropyge flavicauda*

Since the majority of publications use just Centropyge fisheri, it is not
clear if they meant

The original *Centropyge fisheri* or *Centropyge flavicauda*

These are two concepts:

*Centropyge fisheri* anchored by one instance of the species concept an
individual organism

*Centropyge flavicauda* anchored by one instance of the species concept an
individual organism

The descriptions probably do not provide much guidance as to where one
concept starts and another concept begins.

By this I mean a reliable and repeatable guide to what specimens are
instances of each of these concepts.

If *Centropyge fisheri* and *Centropyge flavicauda* were kept separate then
entailed concept would be clearer.

Later someone could hypothesize that these two concepts overlap and provide
evidence that these two specimens that are members of the same species.

In the process they would produce some testable guide that clarifies what
other individuals are also instances of this species concept.

But for now, if you are trying to assemble facts, the mapping of *Centropyge
flavicauda* to *Centropyge fisheri *makes it unclear what concept was
intended.

In summary, those who assert that something is a heterotypic synonym of
something else should provide a guide that clarifies what other individuals
would or would not be instances of that same species concept.

I assume you mean GNUB? Or something else?
>

Yes, I think I wrote GNITE/GNUB, or I intended to.


>
> > "Valid" names would include properly formed synonyms
> > so Felis concolor would return Felis concolor Linnaeus 1771.
>
> Careful with the use of the word "valid".  It means two entirely different
> things to botaniststs and zoologists, and neither of them mean it in the
> same way you are using it.
>
>
Yes, there should be a way to output code compliant names etc, but the
entire process of mapping things to other things does not need to be code
compliant.

There will need to be intermediate namestrings created in the workflow that
may not be code compliant.

There are for intermediate entities that are not covered by the codes.

For instance, it would make a lot of sense that somewhere in this process
there was a link, or documentation to the publication and author behind
 "Linnaeus 1771" etc.

In these examples, those links exist
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/2mqjL.html
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html

Respectfully,

- Pete

---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies
Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/>
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101129/fe8d8086/attachment.html