jrc at ANBG.GOV.AU
Mon Oct 28 17:16:33 CST 2002
> I do have one quibble
> > Some of these senus may be the same, or overlap with
> > varying degrees of inclusivity, or miss each other
> > completely.
> The last of these can only happen in the case where one of
> these "sensus" is a misidentification, or applies to a
> name above the rank of family.
This is not original thought on my part - more a summary of
the set theory work of Marc Geoffroy which seems to cover
Without being able to cite a real example, I can imagine
a situation where you are dealing with homonyms - they
have exactly the same names, at least as far as genus and
species components go, but apart form that, concept-wise,
not even the type is in common. This could be an
example of a non-intersection that is not a
misidentification; both are acceptable concepts but
according to the rules, only one can validly bear the
> My technical definition of
> a "misidentification" is the application of a taxon name
> by a reference to a taxonomic concept or circumscription
> that excludes the primary type of said name.
yes... or it could simply be a 'misidentification' and you
thought it was something else... :)
Thinking of it another way - the concept could be including
the type but you are using the wrong concept...
no, this never happens in taxonomy... :)
> In all other
> cases of names covered by the codes, the sensus must
> minimally overlap at the primary type specimen of the name
pretty sure this will be the most common situation...
This EMail Was brought to you by
A Netwin Web Based EMail Client
More information about the Taxacom