Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts

Richard Pyle deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG
Thu Nov 3 13:09:42 CET 2005


Hi Yde,

Great post!

I have a couple of comments/questions:

> The taxon concept is considered the use of a species concept in
> literature, so that equals your definition, however, the issue
> of taxon concepts is very much a botanic subject.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a "species concept" and a
"taxon concept", in your quote above.

If I understand your prior remark: "but in general we understand as species
concept the species name plus the associated subjective synonyms" -- I think
this is the same as the "taxon concept", but taken to a resolution involving
only name-bearing type specimens.  I do not see any difference between a
zoologist's "species concept" and a botanist's "taxon concept" -- they are
all taxon concepts.  In all cases, a "concept" is a set of multiple
individual organisms, representing a subjective scope of biodiversity to
which a scientific name is applied.  How that scope is communicated (e.g.,
via synonym names as surrogates of their respective name-bearing types; or
by a broader spectrum of non-type specimen material; or by character
descriptions; or whatever) is necessarily variable, but they are just
different ways of defining the boundaries of a circumsctiption of organisms.
Same for botany and zoology.  Also, the connection with literature is not so
much (in my mind) a definitive attribute of a taxon concept. Rather, it is
the easiest way to *refer* to an implied taxon concept.  So the literature
is not part of the concept -- just part of a convenient way of representing
a concept in short-hand notation (and also representing a cross-reference to
documentation that will in most cases further describe the boundaries of the
concept).

> - However, an unique species name id can be easily artificially
> created by merging both generic and epithet id's (a trick we also
> use for Species2000).

By this, do you mean that combinations *other* than the original combination
are stored in Fauna Europaea?  If so, then are they simply indicated as a
direct link between two naked names; or is the link qualified in some way
with a "source" (e.g., some publication or expert's assertion that the genus
name and species epithet are linked)?

> For practical reasons I think the starting point for assigning
> GUIDs should be basically nomenclatural.

I completely agree -- but again, what gets a "Name" GUID? (as opposed to a
"usage" GUID or a "concept" GUID)  Only basionyms? (I hope!)  Or also
different combinations? (I hope not!) Or also spelling variants? (I *really*
hope not!!)  There is also a problem of how to deal with autonyms
(=nominotypical names in zoology).  One GUID, or two? Logically, only one --
but most people don't do it that way.

These are some of the most fundamental questions that need to be addressed
before any universal GUID system can be implemented.

> Aside we should distinguish basionyms for unequivocal linking
> to type specimens and genetic resources.

I completely agree!

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
  and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
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




More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list