Hi Rich,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">The type specimen of the name "Centropyge fisheri" was collected in Hawaii.<br>
<br>
The type specimen of the name "Centropyge flavicauda" was collected at<br>
Macclesfield Banks, China Sea.<br>
<br>
Some treatments regard these as distinct species. Some regard them as<br>
synonyms. The name with priority is C. fisheri.<br>
<br>
Thus, the combination of genus and specific epithet "Centropyge fisheri" can<br>
therefore refer to at least two different concepts: one (sensu stricto) is<br>
the set of organisms in Hawaii; the other (sensu lato) is the set of<br>
organisms in Hawaii and the China Sea (and places in-between).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I am not familiar with the reasoning behind this example but the problem starts when</div><div><br></div><div>
<meta charset="utf-8"><i>Centropyge fisheri</i> <= <i>Centropyge flavicauda</i></div><div><br></div><div>Since the majority of publications use just Centropyge fisheri, it is not clear if they meant</div><div><br></div>
<div>The original <i>Centropyge fisheri</i> or <i>Centropyge flavicauda</i></div><div><br></div><div>These are two concepts:</div><div><br></div><div><meta charset="utf-8"><i>Centropyge fisheri</i> anchored by one instance of the species concept an individual organism</div>
<div><br></div><div><meta charset="utf-8"><i>Centropyge flavicauda</i> anchored by one instance of the species concept an individual organism</div><div><br></div><div>The descriptions probably do not provide much guidance as to where one concept starts and another concept begins.</div>
<div><br></div><div>By this I mean a reliable and repeatable guide to what specimens are instances of each of these concepts.</div><div><br></div><div>If <i>Centropyge fisheri</i> and <i>Centropyge flavicauda</i> were kept separate then entailed concept would be clearer.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Later someone could hypothesize that these two concepts overlap and provide evidence that these two specimens that are members of the same species.</div><div><br></div><div>In the process they would produce some testable guide that clarifies what other individuals are also instances of this species concept.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But for now, if you are trying to assemble facts, the mapping of <i>Centropyge flavicauda</i> to <i>Centropyge fisheri </i>makes it unclear what concept was intended.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I assume you mean GNUB? Or something else?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I think I wrote GNITE/GNUB, or I intended to.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> "Valid" names would include properly formed synonyms<br>
> so Felis concolor would return Felis concolor Linnaeus 1771.<br>
<br>
</div>Careful with the use of the word "valid". It means two entirely different<br>
things to botaniststs and zoologists, and neither of them mean it in the<br>
same way you are using it.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There will need to be intermediate namestrings created in the workflow that may not be code compliant.</div><div><br></div><div>There are for intermediate entities that are not covered by the codes.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>
In these examples, those links exist <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/2mqjL.html">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/2mqjL.html</a> <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html</a></div>
<meta charset="utf-8"><div><br></div><div>Respectfully,</div><div><br></div><div>- Pete </div></div><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><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept Knowledge Base</a> / <a href="http://lod.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br>
<a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br>------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<div><br></div><div><br></div>