critter names

Vr. Richard Bejsak-Colloredo-Mansfeld ricardo at ANS.COM.AU
Sat Oct 13 08:48:04 CDT 2001


another idea for numbering system

genus specie  1987:23 - 654.3

where 1987 year of publishing :23 =  page
            654  code for publication
             number 3 is there if there is more then 1 description on the
page, 3 is third description from the top.
Keep care and be of good cheer.

Regards

(name) Vratislav Richard Eugene Maria John Baptist
(surname) of Bejsak (Bayshark)-Colloredo-Mansfeld

website: http://www.coleoptera.org
listserver: coleoptera on www.egroup.com/group/coleoptera/info.html
Coleoptera - Australia, Tenebrionidae of World
(incl. Lagriinae, Alleculinae)

University of Sydney
The Wentworth Bldg., Box 62
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
phone  :  +61 414 540 465
email: vratislav at bigfoot.com
           ricardo at ans.com.au
           (before Ricardo at compuserve.com
             and    ricardo at login.cz )

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
only after the last river has been poisoned,
only after the last fish has been caught,
only then will you find that money can not be eaten.'
        CREE INDIAN PROPHECY.

Incoming  mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: critter names


> Ron Gatrelle wrote:
>
> > 2)  My main thought was on all
> > "world genera known and unknown"  which is the valid point in there.  If
> > one is going to assign random numbers for cataloging and inventory it
> > should be done is such a way from the start that the same number =
biotic
> > entity is globally standardized.
>
> That depends on what you mean by "biotic entity".  This is where it
becomes
> critical to distinguish taxon "names" from biological taxon "groups".  My
> feeling is that the numbers (and global catalog) should be about "names",
> not about biological entities (i.e., circumscriptions of names). Names are
> objective - they have a single original description, and are anchored to
the
> biological world through a single primary type (assuming that eventually
all
> names based on syntypes eventually become anchored to a single neotype or
> lectotype). These are the entities (names) that we ought to catalog.  A
> second layer of effort is the mapping of those names to actual populations
> of critters and weeds beyond the primary types - the business of
> circumscriptions.  This can also be centralized with respect to listing
all
> the "assertions" about the broader definition of the names, the assertions
> themselves being objective entities (representing a particular subjective
> interpretation by a taxonomist about the scope of a given taxon name). But
> that's a whole 'nother topic of discussion in itself.  What we need to
work
> on first is a phone-book of just the names tied to their original
> descriptions and, ideally, their types (in the case of genera, that would
be
> type species, rather than type specimens).
>
> > It will have to be done sooner or later.
> > Putting more man hours in now would seem to translate to less man hours
> > later to re-do everything or adjust something.
>
> Agreed!
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list