[tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"
ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu
Thu Jul 14 18:46:19 CEST 2011
> I don't know the difference between a geographically defined
> subspecies and a meta-meta population. Do you define them differently?
> I believe (sic!) you can define either either exact or poorly.
Meta-population is an entity and subspecies is the rank you may apply
to this entity, if that is how you like to label that group.
> In my thinking taxa classify individuals or populations.
I guess that is where we disagree.
Well perhaps Organism is a good compromise. I understand viruses are
not but I would prefer to live with that than any other term that
would imply worse consequences.
I am eager to extend the DwC to also cover concepts that are important
to people like me :-) so that when I think about developing
phylogenetic databases, holding phylogenetic concepts, I don't feel
badly constrained by these terms. I would like the DwC to work across
the border. I'm sure I'm not alone in desiring an extensible DwC. So,
> objects that they classify, they don't make (biological) sense. That
> is why I proposed (past tense) this term, but with widespread
> opposition it is not a good term.
> LifeInstances - why not? Or IndividualOrPopulation?
More information about the tdwg-content