[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Geoffrey Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Thu Sep 8 20:55:19 CDT 2011

The original post was talking of labelling, and in this situation any
label is a 'for convenience' condensed indicator of more detailed data
linked to it, and  can comfortably be a mixture of nomenclature and
taxonomy - can't it?

Any practice proposed & introduced in the 1990s seems new-ish to me.


On Fri, September 9, 2011 1:01 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> actually, you are all wrong! The term 'sensu' is taxonomic, not
> nomenclatural, and has nothing to do with name usage in the sense we are
> discussing ...
> NAME sensu PERSON means the name used in the sense of the taxonomic
> concept associated with this NAME by PERSON
> remember that the type of NAME doesn't define the taxonomic concept, due
> largely to lumping/splitting ...
> Stephen
> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> To: gread at actrix.gen.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011 12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly
> I am just as happy with "sensu" as with "sec." -- I'll go along with
> whatever the community consensus is. 
> But just to be clear, "sec." has been in use since the 1990's.  Maybe you
> can fault Berendsohn for not going with "sensu" back then, but the point
> is
> that we're not *now* introducing the term "sec." for this purpose as a new
> convention.  It is a term that has been used, and is now in current active
> use, that was introduced in response to a perception that "sensu" had a
> more
> specific meaning.  Maybe now "sensu" has a less specific meaning, and can
> fill this need (prior to Berendsohn's article, I had previously used
> "sensu"
> for this purpose).
>>From the tone of your message, it seemed as though you were insinuating
>> that
> "sec." is only now being introduced as a new convention.  This is not the
> case.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list