deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG
Mon Oct 28 08:14:48 CST 2002
> >O.K., well that's an issue of semantics (quite literally, "what's in a
> don't go there.... pleeaassee!
No....I didn't mean it that way! Honest! It really is a semantics thing --
do you think of Homonyms as the same "name" (because they share an identical
string of characters), or are they different names (because you define a
taxonomic "name" as more than a string of characters; to include the essence
of its original description). I'm in the latter camp. This doesn't have
anything to do with the messy relationshiop between "names" and "concepts".
> maybe I did not word this all that well... you had a concept in your
> head, it included the type... but it was the wrong type... you though
> you were looking the fern ally Lycopodium, but it was actually a young
> conifer, Dacrydium, a not uncommon mistake... The fern genera
> Stenochlaena and Lomariopsis are superficially very similar but are
> in different familes (orders?) - they are always being truly misidentified
> in the true sense of the word. I think there is a logical difference
> between this situation and the confusion of taxa beind construed
> in different ways... There must be numerous examples in the fish
Thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand you -- I was thinking in
terms of nomenclatural misidentifications (the mis-application of a name to
a concept), rather than specimen misidentifications (the mis-application of
a specimen to a concept). Misidentifications of the former sort are rare;
and of the latter sort are common (including fishes). Another semantics
issue. Yes, I agree that your version of "misidentification" is more
frequently used than the nomenclatural misidentification; so my bad.
Another classic case of being separated by a common langauge....
More information about the Taxacom