[tdwg-content] Taxonomic name usage files

[Nico Franz]

Thanks, Rich.

   Again, this helps a lot. Not really with permission but probably ok,
Greg gave this link: https://www.anbg.gov.au/ibis25/x/UYG2 (see e.g.
"Attribute description" files).

   Here are some other intentions that I think I sometimes have:

1. Given a multitude of well established and precise historical name
usages, I explicitly don't want to commit to one in particular that my
present usage is congruent with, or not. (Indeed, I kind of think this is
what the name withOUT a sec. does, "explicitly"). I choose to be vague -
any past usage is ok with me, here. I think we can presently model the
vagueness (by integrating on the strings alone), but not the deliberateness
thereof (in contrast to other situations where vagueness is not intended)?

2. Franz. 2010. Revision of Apotomoderes (Insecta: Coleoptera). =>
Actually, "Insecta" here is more of a social concession to an outdated data
filing paradigm than a claim to an active speaker role (related to name
usages that I actually care about). I am not intending to apply my
taxonomic expertise to "Insecta"; that is *out of scope* (though the string
is being written).

Best, Nico


On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:

> Hi Nico,
>
> >  At a fairly high level, it does seems to me that if certain kinds of
> speaker
> > intentions facilitate particular semantic integration services (or not
> so much),
> > then finding a structured way to records these intentions may be worth
> exploring.
>
> DEFINITELY agree!
>
> > For instance, could I possibly be the author of a biodiversity data
> paper where
> > all TNUs are explicitly not "mine"?
>
> By the definition of a TNU, no.  The implication of a TNU is that the
> associated Reference explicitly asserts taxonomic opinion concerning
> spelling, rank, classification, and validity/synonymy, as captured in the
> core properties of a TNU.  In cases where a Reference does not make an
> explicit assertion about one or more core properties (e.g., "I recognize
> this as a distinct species, but I don't know what genus it belongs to."; or
> "Some authors treat this as a valid species, and other treat it as a junior
> heterotypic synonym of another species, and I have no opinion on the
> matter."), the TNU simply records the ambiguous property as "Unspecified".
> However, the TNU itself, as anchored to Reference X, does not directly
> defer to a treatment by Reference Y.  Such statements would be captured via
> a "Usage Citation" mechanism that I described in my previous message.  In
> other words, even if Reference X ("my" reference) simply states, "With
> regard to Aus bus L., I follow the treatment of Smith", then we'd have two
> TNUs: one for Reference X, and one for Smith, both of which would otherwise
> have effectively identical TNU properties.  Then we would need to leverage
> the "Usage Citation” mechanism (TCS: relationshipAssertion), to effectively
> state "[Aus bus L. sec. Reference X] is congruent to [Aus bus L. sec.
> Smith]".  So, even if  the taxon concept is not "mine" per se, the TNU most
> definitely is.
>
> I am unaware of examples where someone asserts "Aus is a valid genus, and
> Xus is a valid genus (separate from Aus), and the species bus
> simultaneously belongs to both genera"; or "Aus bus L. is both a valid
> species and a junior heterotypic synonym of Aus dus".  The latter is
> sometimes incorrectly assumed in cases where there are "In Part"
> synonymies.  However, it's a Taxon NAME Usage, not a Taxon CONCEPT Usage;
> and as such, a NAME is anchored to a name-bearing type, so can only belong
> to one species taxon or the other.  Edge cases of types that are of hybrid
> origins, and syntype series with multiple taxa represented, are rectified
> through mechanisms prescribed by the various Codes.
>
> > Or: how do I record a case where I say "our higher-level classification
> follows X", but then
> > X's family-level concepts show up as paraphyletic on my phylogeny.
> Apparently I only
> > followed X so much (at which point I 'said': "screw X, this is better").
>
> This is why TNUs are clean and straightforward (almost always
> unambiguous), whereas relationshipAssertions are a bit messier (i.e., how
> MUCH do I actually follow of Smith's treatment of Aus bus? That it's a
> valid species?  What classification to place it? What rank to treat it as?
> The spelling of the name? The taxon concept circumscription?).  We have our
> five set-theory relationship types (congruent, includes, included in,
> overlaps, excludes), but those are somewhat limited when we have a long
> tradition of conflating hierarchical classification with taxon
> circumscriptions under the umbrella term of "taxon concept".
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> P.S. I did not see Greg's reply or files on the list -- was that
> off-list?  I would, of course, love to see them!
>
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate Zoologist in
> Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer
> Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu,
> HI 96817
> Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20160419/a943145e/attachment.html>