On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Richard Pyle
<deepreef@bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> Various TDWG'ers continue to argue that the original description
> and subsequent revisions were really important in determining
> what these individuals actually meant when they assigned a name
> to a specimen, and that this is how we should model it in
> excruciating detail.
Most of the "TDWG'ers" that I know are FULLY aware that many "modern" taxon
concepts are not congruent to the concepts as originally cirumscribed when a
Code-compliant name was first established. Obviously, the more recent the
original description, the more congruent the original taxon concept will be
to a "modern" concept.
This was a bit of a "straw man" but I think what we would both agree that annotating the identification to the "concept" "as described by the key" would more accurately represent the assertion that was made. It is as if there is pressure to make documenting the identification process more "code compliant" than making it accurately reflect what happened.
In my experience with my bugs and and some of the mammals, the original descriptions and subsequent revisions are not as informative as some in the community portray them. They often do not serve as good guides as to what specimens are instances of that concept and what specimens are not.
Also, maybe some one can tell me where the type specimen is for Culex triseriatus Say, 1823 is? (Aedes triseriatus/Ochlerotatus triseriatus)
Perhaps the species descriptions need to be done in a way that they serve both as a description and as a "key element". Descriptions that are more informative as to what specimens are instances of that species concept and what specimens are not.
Also, that perhaps the Code should be revised to fit the biology, rather than trying to get the biology and related databases to fit the Code.
Respectfully,
- Pete
The reason why it's important to be cognizant of original descriptions of
names is to ensrue that when one applies a taxon name to a modern concept,
the modern concept includes within its circumscription the type specimen for
the name that is used. The original description is relevant primarily for
nomenclatural purposes, and to ensure that a modern taxon concept does not
exclude the type specimen for the name being applied to the modern concept.
Subsequent revisions *are* important to modern concepts, because those are
the places where real taxon concept definitions (e.g., the sort that are
used when people construct keys) are documented.
> For example, how many of the species observed in the recent
> BioBlitz were identified by referring to the original
> species description or subsequent revisions?
Probably none. More likely they were identified to field guides, and the
field guides more than likely base their concept boundaries (=implied
synonimies) on a (relatively) recent taxonomic work.
Aloha,
Rich