<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Peter DeVries wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi Richard<div><br></div><div>You are agreeing with me.<div><br></div><div>My point is that the DarwinCore should include an identifier that resolves to a site that provides some information about how that concept is defined.</div> <div> </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wouldn't the taxonConceptID provide that? </div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>1) First by mapping the concept to the various names and related identifiers</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>2) By providing additional information that helps one determine if a specimen is a close match to that species concept.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What sort of additional information? Literature, specimens, and descriptions can be included even using the text guidelines as we have done. There must be even more detailed ways to do it. These are tied to the taxonID which could be linked to a resolvable taxon concept ID.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div> <div><br></div><div>The field nameAccordingTo does not provide this kind of information.</div><div><br></div><div>- Pete<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Richard Pyle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deepreef@bishopmuseum.org">deepreef@bishopmuseum.org</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "> <div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial">I don't think that's right. Names are pointers to species concepts, but are not concepts themselves. A label for a species concept would look like "Aus bus sensu Author/Citation" or "Aus bus sec. Author/Citation". Also, of course, the name is not, in itself, a unique identifier (in something like 10% of cases -- which in my mind is non-trivial).</font></span></div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span>Also, I disagree with the idea that Aedes triseriatus and Ochlerotatus triseriatus necessarily refer to different taxon concepts. </span></font></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with Rich here. The two names themselves can only be inferred to refer to the same type. In a given instance they could either be used to refer to the same or a different concept. I would think that this must be true for any binomial combination referring to the same type. On the other hand, names referring to different types could not validly refer to the same concept if my current late night thinking is correct. A circumscription that includes multiple types must follow a set of rules to determine the name.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div><div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span>To me, the "concept" is the circumscribed set of organisms. If I curcumscribe a set of organisms that I label with "Aedes triseriatus", and then later decide that this set of organisms is best classified in the genus Ocherotatus, then naming it as such does not change the circumscribed set of organisms. It certainly may have implications on the concepts for the genera "Aedes" and "Ochlerotatus", but in my mind, it has no effect on the implied circumscription (=Concept, sensu me) of what is indicated by the species epithet "triseriatus".</span></font></div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span></span></font> </div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span>I do not think it makes sense to include hierarchical clasification as part of the terminal taxon "concept". Taxa at each hierarchical rank are, in my mind, defined by their contents; not their higher classification.</span></font></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I also agree with Rich here. A concept shouldn't change based on how it is categorized.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span></span></font> </div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span>The way I visualize it, there is a many:many relationship between names and concepts (I *think* this applies no matter what you mean by "name", and no matter what you mean by "concept"). The same circumscription of organisms can be labelled by many different names, and the same name may apply to many different circumscriptions of organisms (not just homonyms/homographs, but also lumper/splitter issues).</span></font></div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span></span></font> </div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span>Therefore, I don't think it is appropriate to try to equate names:concepts as 1:1, or even many:1.</span></font></div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span></span></font> </div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span>Aloha,</span></font></div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span>Rich</span></font></div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span></span></font> </div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span>P.S. I certainly think that "Aedes triseriatus" and "Ochlerotatus triseriatus" are different "things", just not (necessarily) different taxon concepts. Actually, from an informatics perspective, I think that treating these different combinations as unique/identified objects doesn't gain us much. I think it's *MUCH* more robust to parse out the different individual usages of each combination as the identified objects, then derive the unique combinations/spellings/etc. from those usages. If the notion of indexing usages seems too intimidating, then start with the easy ones -- like the original useages of each of the name elements ("Aedes", "Ochlerotatus", and "triseriatus"), and the key treatments (e.g., whoever first combined "triseriatus" with the genus "Ochlerotatus", and/or whoever robustly defined alternate concepts for each).</span></font></div> <div><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div> <div><br></div> <blockquote style="border-left:#0000ff 2px solid;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px" dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr" lang="en-us" align="left"> <hr> <font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Peter DeVries<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:38 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking<br></font><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5"> <div></div>I was looking through the latest DarwinCore and comments related to the TaxonConceptID. <div><br></div> <div>Since the name serves as both a unique identifier and a phylogenetic hypothesis, you are effectively saying that observations labeled </div> <div><br></div> <div><i>Aedes triseriatus</i></div> <div><br></div> <div>and</div> <div><br></div> <div><i>Ochlerotatus triseriatus</i> </div> <div><br></div> <div>Are separate species concepts, and should therefore be treated as separate things.</div> <div><br></div> <div>i.e. The name is the concept.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Also since there are several name variants for each "species", how do you distinguish which of these nameID's are the same species and which are different?</div> <div><br></div> <div>- Pete</div> <div><br></div> <div>----------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br>GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <br>About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base<br>------------------------------------------------------------<br></div></div></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>----------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br> 1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br>GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <br>About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base<br>------------------------------------------------------------<br> </div></div> _______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>