Dear All, After a series of off-list conversations with Peter DeVries, Dave Remsen, and others; and thanks to John W. for pointing me to the active list of terms, I would like to offer some additional thoughts on the "Core Taxon" terms; but before I do, I want to make sure I understand how the existing terms are intended to be used.
From the perspective of an Occurrence (specimen/observation/etc.) record represented through DwC, it seems to me that there are three sets of name/taxon terms:
1. "As Identified" [Information about how the record is currently identified.] - scientificName - scientificNameID - scientificNameAuthorship - taxonAccordingTo - taxonAccordingToID 2. "As originally established" [Information about the original name as established under the Code] - originalTaxonName - originalTaxonNameID - namePublishedIn - namePublishedInID 3. "Opinion of Data Provider" [Information about how the data provider interprets the correct name.] - acceptedTaxon - acceptedTaxonID I'm not entirely certain which "set" of names the following terms would apply to: - rank - verbatimRank - higherTaxonName - higherTaxonNameID - higherClassification - kingdom - phylum - class - order - family - genus - subgenus - specificEpithet - infraspecificEpithet According to the current draft spreadsheet (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tZ3c04UGzRgalNxZMmcijcQ&output=html) , it seems that the first two apply specifically to the "scientificName", and therefore belong in the first set (i.e., rank according to how it was identified; not necessarily how the Data Provider now treats it, or what the original rank was). I assume the rest all apply to "Opinion of Data Provider"; but this is not explicitly stated. For example, consider the specimen BPBM 13492. It was most recently identified as "Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933". Our current treatment of this species is as a junior synonym of "Centropyge fisheri (Snyder 1904)". The original description "fisheri" by Snyder (1904) placed it in the genus "Holacanthus". I'm assuming that I would present this record via DwC using the above terms as follows: 1. As Identified: scientificName: Centropyge flavicauda scientificNameID: http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?s pid=53548 scientificNameAuthorship: Fraser-Brunner 1933 taxonAccordingTo: Allen, G.R. 1980. Butterfly and angelfishes of the world. Volume II. Mergus Publishers. Pp. 149-352. taxonAccordingToID: http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/getref.asp?id=22 764 2. As originally established: - originalTaxonName: Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933 - originalTaxonNameID: http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?s pid=53548 - namePublishedIn: Fraser-Brunner, A. 1933. A revision of the chaetodont fishes of the subfamily Pomacanthinae. Proceedings of the General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of London 1933 (pt 3, no. 30): 543-599, Pl. 1. - namePublishedInID: http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/getref.asp?id=67 1 3. Opinion of Data Provider: acceptedTaxon: Centropyge fisheri acceptedTaxonID: http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?s pid=53548 If my assumptions are correct, then "specificEpithet" would be "fisheri", not "flavicauda" -- correct? Once I get a sense from this list whether I am interpreting the terms correctly (or not), I'll offer some specific comments on the taxon terms. Aloha, Rich