unique numbers for species

Geoff Read g.read at NIWA.CRI.NZ
Fri Oct 12 14:13:40 CDT 2001


> Clytus marginicollis Laporte & Gory 1835
> Clytus marginicollis Castelneau & Gory 1835

> *We* may recognize that those pairs are the same, but will a
> computer?

Gosh, if it doesn't there's something wrong with it, or its programming.
They're on the face of it homonyms which should be obvious *even* to a
computer, and there will be a rule to determine what happens next. At least
the computer should say "beep beep ... what do I do with this one Boss?"
Boss then consults his notes on the accepted formulation for Gory's 1935
authorship.

Without missing the point that human intervention will  be needed to resolve
ambiguity, I can't see much wrong with *always* pinning names to their
basionyms in any rigorous database. I think we've got enough to do without
adding a retrospective number system to our problems.


--
  Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
  http://www.annelida.net/




More information about the Taxacom mailing list