Personally, I don't really care what the term is -- as long as it's well-defined, appropriate, reasonably unambiguous, and used consistently. Of the options John listed, I personally prefer "Biological Entity", but I also see Gregor's point that it may be too generic. I don't like the word "Individual", because I would like to see it applied up to at least the level of a group of individuals, if not a population (I would be very happy if the "entity" covered by the term included subtypes of "Population", "Group", "IndividualOrganism", and perhaps even "OrganismPart"; as well as whatever terms in-between this spectrum are deemed useful).
I guess "Organism" comes closest, and I don't think the definition needs to be so "pure" that it excludes viruses. But whatever term is selected, please try to pick something that introduces as little ambiguity as possible.
Aloha, Rich
-----Original Message----- From: Gregor Hagedorn [mailto:g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:07 AM To: Paul Murray Cc: Richard Pyle; TDWG Content Mailing List; biscicol@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"
On 11 July 2011 02:51, Paul Murray pmurray@anbg.gov.au wrote:
What happened to 'Organism'?
Would exclude viruses. -- Gregor