[tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Markus,

When I get back home I can send you some more specific examples.  In some
cases this happens intentionally, when a name that is clearly a junior
synonym of another name requires a neotype, and both the junior synonym and
senior synonym were collected in the same geographic region. Some authors
prefer to fix the synonym in such cases by assigning the primary type of the
senior synonym as the neotype for the junior synonym, to establish objective
synonymy (note: I'm not commenting on whether this is good practice or bad,
but it definitely happens).  In other cases, there is inadvertent
duplication of effort when two different researchers name different names
for the same new species based on the same type, not realizing that another
researcher is working on the same material.  In other cases, a
less-scrupulous author attempts to "steal" a name from another research. Two
examples of the latter off the top of my head include:

Chaetodon declevis
http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?s
pid=8710

Hemitaurichthys multispinus
http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?s
pid=22029

I can do a more thorough search for examples when I get back home.

As I said, it's certainly not common, but definitely does happen enough that
it could be a problem.

Aloha,
Rich


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Döring [mailto:m.doering at mac.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:09 AM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: John Wieczorek; TDWG Content Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
> 
> Rich, do you have examples of a specimen being the (current) type of
> multiple names?
> I was looking for these but could not find any. As the GBIF data coming in
is
> flat we obviously only see simple cases and I'd be interested to study the
> more complex ones.
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> On 04 Dec 2013, at 11:51, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hmmm.....
> >
> > This is the reason that typeStatus was included in the Identification
> > class
> > -- so that it always is associated with both a specimen (manifest as
> > an occurrence), and to a taxon (name) -- to which the specimen is
> Identified.
> > This is in keeping with what the concept of a "type specimen" really
> > is -- that is, a specimen is not a type inherently, but rather a
> > specimen is
> > *designated* as a type by someone at some time, via an Identification
> > instance.
> >
> > Of course, because DwC classes are not really intended to be used in
> > an ontological sense, and because most Museums put their "typeStatus"
> > field in their specimen table (rather than in an Identification
> > table), I can certainly understand the need for this proposed new term.
> >
> > I guess my main concern/question is:  how to deal with specimens that
> > represent types of more than one name? (not common, but not
> > necessarily an Edge-case either)
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-
> >> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:13 AM
> >> To: TDWG Content Mailing List
> >> Subject: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> This message is to open public commentary on a request for a new
> >> term, typifiedName, submitted by Markus Döring to the Darwin Core
> >> issue tracker at
> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=197.
> >> The justification given for inclusion of the term is:
> >>
> >> "Clear separation of the type status and the typified scientific name
> >> that
> > is
> >> typified by a type specimen, the subject. Looking at how
> >> dwc:typeStatus
> > has
> >> been used in all of GBIFs specimen data one can see there is the need
> >> to express this, but it should better be handled with a term on its
> >> own and leave typeStatus for the status of the type only. The term
> >> name itself is
> > also
> >> used by ABCD:
> >> http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/ABCD/AbcdConcept0603."
> >>
> >> The proposal is as follows:
> >>
> >> Definition:
> >> The scientific name that is based on the type specimen.
> >>
> >> Comment:
> >> It is recommended to also indicate the typeStatus of the specimen.
> >>
> >> Refines:
> >>
> >> Has Domain:
> >>
> >> Has Range:
> >>
> >> Replaces:
> >>
> >> ABCD 2.06:
> >>
> DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation
> >> s/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> tdwg-content mailing list
> >> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-content mailing list
> > tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content