Hi Paul, What you are proposing is actually different than the ICZN code isn't it?
Aren't people tying those cougars they write about to the type specimen? Not a collection of specimens?
The issue you are raising about species concepts also pertain to name based identifiers.
What do they mean when they use *Felis concolor*? Do they mean something different then *Puma concolor*?
For a large number of species people seem to "mean" the same thing when using different binomial names. They are either not aware of the name change or they disagree with the particular taxonomic hypothesis bound to a specific binomial name.
There are cases where the species concept itself is wrong and either needs to be split or combined with another. I think that these cases are handled more easily with a species concept identifier than an array of name-based identifiers.
It appears that most differences in nomenclature for "good" species are due to the former issue rather than the invalidity of the underlying species concept.
The issue of what is a species is still unresolved, but the system I am proposing allows one to link the names in literature and data to a common species concept.
It seems clear that *Felis concolor* and *Puma concolor* map to the same species concept and should be placed in the box with one label on it. This label would not need to change when that species is moved to a different genus.
Under the system you describe you would have to change the label on the box with every change in phylogeny, even if the box still contains the same individual members of a species.
Respectfully,
- Pete
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Paul Kirk p.kirk@cabi.org wrote:
Pete,
If you had a 'container' called species concept what would you put in it so that computers, let alone other people, knew what you meant?
In the real world we have collections of real (individual or groups of) organisms which we put in a container and label the container with a name for that species. Others can look in this container, examine the real objects and either agree that all the object belong to a single species concept or split the objects into two or more groups and assign different names to the new species concepts. The reverse can occur where two containers are merged and then the Codes give guidance of which of the two names is the correct one.
Creating identifiers for the species concepts solves nothing if we do not know how a concept is defined.
Paul
*From:* tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of Peter DeVries *Sent:* Thu 14/05/2009 23:00 *To:* Kevin Richards *Cc:* tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; lynette.woodburn@csiro.au *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
I think that the effort to organize information about species has been moving so slowly in part because of it's focus on names. Our goal is to organize information about species, names are just the handle that we use to tag a species.
The efforts would go much more quickly if we create identifiers for species concepts and then point the various names to that identifier.
I did a check via Google Scholar for papers published this year that mention the *Puma concolor*, and *Felis concolor.*
Both of these names for the same species are still being used.
It would make sense to mint global URI for that species concept and then tag all papers, images, observations to that species concept.
As these documents are being processed, more and more information will be tied to that identifier.
Identifiers for "good" species could be created quickly. New observations could start to be tagged with that identifier along with whatever name the recorder would like to use. e.g. Aedes/Ochlerotatus
These concepts could be mapped to the GNI data in the following way
http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3165624 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/505310 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10330292 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/6689244 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3169574 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10568463 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/12104361 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/1758834 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/11818218
I have not had much success getting this idea accepted in a number of these communities.
So I have a proposal. Let my group start making species concept identifiers. If this concept is adopted, I have succeeded in proving my point. If this concept fails, then I am wrong. Either way, we should have an answer by the end of the decade.
Respectfully,
- Pete
P.S. This is not about changing the system of binomial nomenclature, it is about tying data together so we can start to address the world's problems in a efficient manner. Binomial nomenclature stays. ;-)
P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.