That task falls upon my shoulders, I think (as convener of the TDWG TNC working group). I'm actually working on documentation for GNUB now, and I hope to summarize a bunch of these ideas in there (at least the ones I'm professing). But in my copious free time, I'll review the taxon-related threads on this list and try to summarize the alternate perspectives, then format something on the TDWG TNC wiki.
For now, though, I thing email technology is still the best way to engage the broadest set of perspectives.
Rich
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Richards [mailto:RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:35 PM To: Nico Franz; Richard Pyle Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] Taxon and Name
My concern is that all this hard work and great discussion is going to end up in the mailing list archives! What we really need is someone to maintain a wiki (or something) that summarises the discussions had here - I know no-one is keen to do this really, but I wonder if this might be something TDWG needs to invest in ???
Kevin
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Nico Franz Sent: Wednesday, 3 November 2010 1:09 p.m. To: Richard Pyle Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Taxon and Name
Thanks, Rich:
This might quickly turn into a test of endurance for all involved.Nevertheless, I think a couple of things a worth taking up specifically, as done below.
On 11/2/2010 2:36 PM, Richard Pyle wrote:
I just think that there's this other taxonomy outthere 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.
Yes, I can see that (and we've had this conversation before). But first we need to come up with a common understanding of
what a "taxon
concept" is, and how to articulate it with some precision.
One way to
define a concept is as a clade; that is, something like "all descendents of the most recent common ancestor of these two organisms". This is one of the ways that Phylocode establishes the definition of a clade. It's not perfect (nothing is ever perfect), because with such definitions you will often have organisms that belong to two different taxon concepts simultaneously
(hybridization,
introgression, etc.) But that's not intrinsically a bad
thing, as long
as it's understood and accomodated. The real problem, of
course, is
that we're still in our relative infancy in our ability to discirn whether or not a paricular organism is, or is not, a
descendant of the
most recent common ancestor of two other organisms. Also,
there is the problem of mapping to centuries of legacy information. Disagree, on the following grounds. The basic model of reference in play is (crudely): uses of human language <==> some sort of mapping/reference <==> entities in nature. This model allows for the mapping of language to nature to be spot on or way off, which is critical for proper modeling of taxonomic practice through time. Using precise terminology, a taxonomic concept could never be a clade, that would be nature (on the right side of the equation), but a best a perceived clade, according to a particular perspective. In addition, there can be valid concepts that are not clades (in the Hennigian/phylogenetic sense), and not even intended to be clades, for example in groups with lots of horizontal gene transfer or at and below the species level. In short, concepts are meant to variously refer to clades or other reference-worthy groups in nature, but they are not fruitfully equated with clades themselves.
So I think the most practical way to define the cirumscription boundaries of a taxon cocnept at this point in history (and the one that is most likely to leverage historical content) is via type specimens (proxied by heterotypic synonyms). It's much fuzzier and less precise than the mechanism described in the previous
paragraph, but far more practical.
What you're advocating is, I think, represents a reasonable path forward towards more robustly defined, and objectively
articulated, taxon cocnepts.
Many historically published published make use of a combination of ostensive components (things being pointed to; type specimens, type species, other members) and intensional components (properties being referenced; diagnostic features, synapomorphies, metabolic functions, etc.). Each component has strengths and weaknesses, but it's hard for me to image that we can do a passable representation job focusing mainly on one and not the other. I'll leave it at that.
In other contexts, possibly including the representation ofidentification 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.
I think the key distinction that should be made is the distinction between a "defined" concept, and an "implied" concept.
Almost every
Taxon Name Usage (sensu lato) instance carries with it an implied taxon concept, but as I said, the vast, vast majority of those (especially if you include Museum specimen identifications) are extremely anemic on deails for understanding the boundaries of the implied taxon concept, and therefore it's difficult or
impossible to
reliably map the congurnecy (or not) with other implied or defined taxon concepts. On the other hand, what we should be
really striving
for is recognition of taxon concepts that are well "defined". These are also rooted in TNU's, but carry with them robust
information for
inferring the boundaries of the circumscribed concept (full
synonymy,
robust mateial examined, robust descriptions of
morphological and/or
genetic characters, etc.) I think this distinction is important to make ("defined", vs. merely "implied"), because what we'd
ultimately like to do is find a way to map implied concepts to well-defined concepts. Agree.
Getting back to DwC, one area of direct relevance to this is the Identification class.
Most datasets out there simply slap a taxon name to a specimen or observation. Some of them go so far as to say who identified it to that name, and when. But most do not take the final step
and anchor
the identification to a particular well-defined concept
(or, indeed, any TNU).
All specimen identifications represent an action that places the specimen within the boundaries of a circumscribed taxon cocnept (whether the person making the identification realizes this
or not).
What we should be striving for is a mechanim to tie specimen identifications to particular TNUs that represent
reasonably well-defined taxon cocnepts. The statement should be:
"On this date, this person asserted that this specimen falls within the taxon concept circumscription of Aus bus (L.) sec. Smith 1990".
Yes.
If an Identification is a tuple of a Taxon instance (in the
DWC sense)
and an Occurrence instance (or an Individual instance, if
that class
becomes established), with associated metadata, then I think DwC is already primed to make the quoted statement above (i.e., to anchor Identifications to particular usage instances, because
"taxonID" can
represent a specific usage instance -- assuming the right
attributes
ae included). Retsated in DwC terms, this would be:
"On [dwc:dateIdentified], [dwc:identifiedBy] asserted that [dwc:occurenceID|dwc:individualID] falls within the taxon concept circumscription of [taxonID], which represents a taxon name
usage for
[dwc:scientificName] according to [dwc:nameAccordingToID]"
In the future, if Peter DeVries is successful with his
ambitions, then
this could be simplied to:
"On [dwc:dateIdentified], [dwc:identifiedBy] asserted that [dwc:occurenceID|dwc:individualID] falls within the taxon concept circumscription of [taxonID], which represents [dwc:taxonConceptID]"
Or maybe even:
"On [dwc:dateIdentified], [dwc:identifiedBy] asserted that [dwc:occurenceID|dwc:individualID] falls within the taxon concept circumscription of [taxonConceptID]"
In the latter two examples, taxonConceptID would represent
an array or
set of TNUs with congruent taxon concept definitions.
I'm still not 100% sure how best to use
dwc:identificationReferences,
other than perhaps as a method for aggregating multiple
TNUs (assumed
to refer to congruent, or at least overlapping concept circumscriptions), which were used by someone when making
an identification.
Aloha, Rich
Cheers,
Nico
Nico M. Franz Department of Biology University of Puerto Rico Call Box 9000 Mayagüez, PR 00681-9000
Phone: (787) 832-4040, ext. 3005 Fax: (787) 834-3673 E-mail: nico.franz@upr.edu Website: http://academic.uprm.edu/~franz/ _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz