[tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Jul 11 15:58:48 CEST 2011

Personally, I don't really care what the term is -- as long as it's
well-defined, appropriate, reasonably unambiguous, and used consistently.
Of the options John listed, I personally prefer "Biological Entity", but I
also see Gregor's point that it may be too generic.  I don't like the word
"Individual", because I would like to see it applied up to at least the
level of a group of individuals, if not a population (I would be very happy
if the "entity" covered by the term included subtypes of "Population",
"Group", "IndividualOrganism", and perhaps even "OrganismPart"; as well as
whatever terms in-between this spectrum are deemed useful).

I guess "Organism" comes closest, and I don't think the definition needs to
be so "pure" that it excludes viruses.  But whatever term is selected,
please try to pick something that introduces as little ambiguity as


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregor Hagedorn [mailto:g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:07 AM
> To: Paul Murray
> Cc: Richard Pyle; TDWG Content Mailing List; biscicol at googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"
> On 11 July 2011 02:51, Paul Murray <pmurray at anbg.gov.au> wrote:
> > What happened to 'Organism'?
> Would exclude viruses. -- Gregor

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list