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

Nico Cellinese 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,  
forgive me.


> Without
> 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?
> Gregor

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list