[tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 20, Issue 17

[Richard Pyle]

> I think if I'm understanding what John wrote, 
> he was going to substitute "taxon" for "species 
> (or lower taxonomic rank if it exists)" with 
> the understanding that Individual is not 
> intended to be used for aggregates of 
> different taxa.  That would solve this problem, right?

It depends on what you mean by "different taxa".  If you are using the word
"taxa" here to imply "species or lower ranks", than I don't think it would
solve the problem.  But if you mean it in a generic way, then I'm OK with
that.  By "in a generic way", suppose I had a trawl sample or a plankton tow
sample that included unidentified organisms from multiple phyla, all of
which are animals.  I should not be prevented from representing this
aggregate as an "Individual", with an identification instances linked to a
taxon concept labelled as "Animalia".  This means the contents of the
Individual all belong to a single taxon (Animalia), and therefore it does
not violate the condition excluding aggregates of different taxa. An
instance of Individual so identified would be almost useless for many
purposes, I agree -- but it's easy enough to filter such Individuals out by
looking at dwc:taxonRank of the Taxon to which the Individual was
identified. Also, it's not useless for all purposes, because a botanist
would like to know that s/he doesn't have to look through that sample to
find stuff of interest.

I guess my point is, there should not be any rank-based requirement for the
implied taxon circumscription of an "Individual".

Rich