Rich:
As a matter of clarification, perhaps also to the group - the "definition" I provided for a taxonomic concept has a bit of a normative quality (agenda is too grand a word). The thinking behind it is that concept taxonomy with fairly rapidly dissolve into name taxonomy if the distinction between acts of authoring (even if congruently), citing, and identifying to, concepts is not maintained with some consistency.
Sure, the Catalogue of Life (as just one example) purports to present some authoritative (mix of) taxonomic view(s). An informal name on a museum specimen by a late expert of the group probably translates into a concept in the mind of a student familiar with the group.
I just think that there's this other taxonomy out there in the future, where we taxonomists think and act more like we care for others (incl. computers) to understand our classifications, where the parts come from, what's congruent and what has changed, how to precisely reconcile with previous views, etc. And for that future to become more real, perhaps a high threshold for identifying new concepts (in the sense of authoring anew [versus citing], not necessarily a new meaning) is needed.
In other contexts, possibly including the representation of identification events in museums, the bar for calling something a concept need not be that high (informal names, names outside of publications, local checklists, etc.). In any case, it's a matter of where one puts the emphasis, and hopefully I've pointed out where I would set it and why.
Respectfully,
Nico
On 11/2/2010 4:19 AM, Richard Pyle wrote:
Hi Steve,
[...]
- There are taxon concepts, which I guess represents a
particular circumscription of individuals. The taxon concept is the result of some kind of rule that allows one to decide whether particular individuals should be included in that taxon or not. The set of all biological individuals that are included are the actual concept (or maybe not?).
I think that's probably about right, but I generally prefer Nico's wording in his reply. Only thing I'm a little uncomfortable with in his #1 (second paragraph) is the notion that a Taxon Concept relies on the existence of a scientific name. I think that a taxon concept exists independantly of the name(s) that have been used to label it, to include circumscribed sets of individuals that have not yet been assigned a scientific name. I also think they can exist independently of a publication. I also tend to think of the concept as the "implied" set of organisms (living, dead, yet-to-be-born), which is more or less what I think Nico means, but perhaps worded slightly differently.
I agree that what I think of as "taxonNameUsage" is somewhat close to what Nico defines as "Taxon Concept", but a TNU doesn't always come with an implied concept -- sometimes it's just a raw name-usage without an implied concept (e.g., in a catalog of type specimens at a Museum). However, I would say that *all* taxon concepts are anchored to at least one TNU instance, keeping in mind that the "N" part doesn't have to be a scientific name, and the "U" doesn't have to occur within the scope of a publication. I would say very close...but I didn't study your email or diagram in detail.
Aloha, Rich
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content