[tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
pete.devries at gmail.com
Thu Jun 10 23:29:05 CEST 2010
Are these concepts fixed to a particular phylogenetic hypothesis i.e. a
What I am getting at is that for a number of uses. Aedes triseriatus and
Ochlerotatus triseriatus are the same "species concept"
Because the character "pattern" is the same and the set of individuals that
are considered instances of that concept are the same.
The only difference is that someone has made the assertion that the
instances of that concept have a different phylogeny.
Also in the case of this particular species, the original description is not
very informative and *I believe* the original type specimen has been lost.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Kevin Richards <
RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:
> I think my main point here was the fact that in most schemas we (TDWG, et
> al) have created, we have not really provided an ID field for (2). As you
> said (2) is the "concept definition" but there is no ID field (that I have
> come across), for referring to it explicitly.
> My thought would be to have something like:
> that returns data for the "whole" taxon concept (ie 2), not just the Name +
> I think it is really a data/technical issue - ie the way the schemas/models
> are defined, a Taxon Concept ID includes, and only includes, a Name ID and a
> Reference ID. This is based on my understanding of TCS - perhaps DwC is
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
> Sent: Friday, 11 June 2010 9:03 a.m.
> To: Kevin Richards; 'Peter DeVries'
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Jerry Cooper
> Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
> > This is something that has been slightly confused over the years, ie
> seems to be 2 ways of defining a "taxon concept":
> > 1. A Taxon Name (nomenclatural data) + Literature Reference - ie Name X
> defined in article Y
> > 2. As you have said a grouping of data that define a taxon concept (Name
> Reference + Synonyms + Type Specimen + Protologue, .)
> I don't think of these as two different ways of defining a concept. I see
> #1 as a way of *pointing to* a taxon concept definition, and #2 as the
> concept definition itself. Basically, #1 (usage instance) is effectively a
> container or an identifier for the taxon concept definition.
> However, there is somewhat of a dichotmy in the way that taxon concepts are
> defined - one is by included members (i.e., specimens, presumably including
> at least one name-bearing type specimen, from which a name-label is
> derived), the other is by properties (i.e. characters -- morphologic,
> genetic, or otherwise). In practice, most concept definitions include
> But I think the "definition" of the concept (i.e., the circumscription
> boundaries) is the same for both -- it's just that those boundaries can be
> articulated in different ways (i.e., by examplar members, and by purported
> > 1 has been covered quite well with the various schemas we have come up
> > with over the years, but I think these schemas have failed to capture
> > 2 very well (the data fields are there, but the encompassing ID is not),
> Agreed -- sort of. I think the schemas are there, but have not been
> organized appropriately (yet). See below.
> > TaxonName ID = N1, FullName = "Aus bus"
> > Reference ID = R1, Citation = "Richards, how to define a taxon concept"
> > TaxonConcept ID = C1, NameID = N1, ReferenceID = R1
> > BUT, the taxon concept C1 does not encompass all related data that
> that concept (synonyms etc)
> No, but it could, through a network of linkages, as I tried to describe in
> one of my recent posts.
> > To do that we need more Concept Ids and relationships between these
> concepts, eg
> Exactly! And we need a schema-based process to capture the relevant
> information (diagnoses, etc.), anchored to the Concept Ids. At a basic
> level, Plazi/TaxonX does this. However, it usually only goes as far as the
> text-blob. To parse the text blob, we need to either look towards SDD (for
> character-based concept definition stuff) or DwC/Occurrence (for
> specimen-based concept definition stuff).
> > ConceptRelationship ID=CR1 ConceptFromID=C2, ConceptToID =C1,
> RelationshipType='has preferred name'
> Yes, I agree we need this as well! But again, I see this as a way of
> networking pointers to taxon concept defintions, not describing the
> definitions themselves.
> Man, these conversations really hurt my brain.... :-)
> 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
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-content