Name for the standard

[Richard Pyle]

> Note also that, for efficiency, different features are described at
> different levels of the tree. Thus, whether the ovary is superior or
> inferior is often most efficiently coded at family level, whether
> the leaves
> are opposite or alternate may best be coded at genus level, what
> colour the
> flowers are at species level, and how long the seeds are may be best at
> specimen level. Ultimately, you're right, all coded features 'inherit' to
> the ends of the tree (the specimens) but it would be inefficient
> to code, or
> to store, the data there.

This is exactly the answer I needed -- thanks.  So yes, for obvious
practical reasons, described characters can apply directly to taxonomic
concepts.  But I guess the one lingering point I have is that the
descriptive data is not *necessarily* used only in the context of taxonomy,
and as such perhaps should not be confined to a taxonomic context by
whatever moniker is finally selected. I think that a taxon could be thought
of as a "Bioliogical Object", so that might be a more encompassing term.
But then again, if you don't want to confine it to living objects, then the
"Biological" could be discarded.

> I quite like SDBO. Is there a courier service from Lisbon to Hawaii?

Nah -- just think warm thoughts next month in Portugal (wish I could attend,
but alas, cannot).

Aloha,
Rich