[tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking

David Remsen (GBIF) dremsen at gbif.org
Sat Jun 12 22:49:49 CEST 2010

Pete -

This statement has been sticking with me since I read it.   It might  
be me but I don't see any relationship between that statement and how  
this relates to taxon concepts.   In a concept-based system you could  
easily have two different maps for Puma concolor.    Whether Felis  
concolor is included is not relevant because nomenclatural synonyms  
have no bearing on the circumscription.  They are both names for the  
same type.

There may be two different concepts (circumscriptions) published for  
Aedes triseriatus.   It could be quite legit for a different  
(objective synonym only) name like Oclerotatus triseriatus to refer to  
that same concept.  So in that sense,   there is a rationale for  
different scientific names to be able to reference the same concept to  
meet that requirement of the example you cite.   But in zoology these  
examples aren't even considered different names and the rule of  
priority would prevent truly different (heterotypic names) from  
referring to the same type so the use cases for different scientific  
names being able to refer to a single concept ID are quite limited.

Mapping objective (homotypic) synonymy provides the basis for  
providing a single map for those examples you cite but it's not using  
true concept-based principles.


> Frankly I think it would be an improvement if we could get maps etc  
> that combine Aedes triseriatus / Ochlerotatus triseriatus into one  
> map and Felis concolor and Puma concolor into a different single  
> map. :-)
> Respectfully,
> - Pete

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list