[tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"

[Richard Pyle]

Personally, I don't really care what the term is -- as long as it's
well-defined, appropriate, reasonably unambiguous, and used consistently.
Of the options John listed, I personally prefer "Biological Entity", but I
also see Gregor's point that it may be too generic.  I don't like the word
"Individual", because I would like to see it applied up to at least the
level of a group of individuals, if not a population (I would be very happy
if the "entity" covered by the term included subtypes of "Population",
"Group", "IndividualOrganism", and perhaps even "OrganismPart"; as well as
whatever terms in-between this spectrum are deemed useful).

I guess "Organism" comes closest, and I don't think the definition needs to
be so "pure" that it excludes viruses.  But whatever term is selected,
please try to pick something that introduces as little ambiguity as
possible.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregor Hagedorn [mailto:g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:07 AM
> To: Paul Murray
> Cc: Richard Pyle; TDWG Content Mailing List; biscicol at googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"
> 
> On 11 July 2011 02:51, Paul Murray <pmurray at anbg.gov.au> wrote:
> > What happened to 'Organism'?
> 
> Would exclude viruses. -- Gregor