[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Sep 8 21:17:29 CDT 2011


>Yes -- exactly.  Isn't that what the original question from Donat was about?
Except I think "NAME sensu PERSON" is short-hand for the more explicit "NAME
sensu REFERENCE"
> Berendsohn was talking about "potential taxa" when he proposed "sec.", so
> I'm pretty sure that he was talking about taxonomy (not nomenclature)
 
Aaaarrrggghhh!!!
Here's the problem: 
on ZooBank, we use sec in a nomenclatural sense, unrelated to the above taxonomic sense!
Consider NAME sensu Smith, 2000
If Brown (2002) writes of the same taxonomic concept, then Brown (2002) also uses NAME sensu Smith, 2000
 
but, nevertheless, in the ZooBank sense of sec, NAME sec Brown, 2002 is a distinct entity from NAME sec Smith, 2000, even though both are just NAME sensu Smith, 2000!
 
So, on my understanding, NAME "sec sensu ZooBank" [sorry!] Brown, 2002 just means a subsequent usage of NAME, not established as new by Brown (2002), and has nothing to do with taxonomic concepts ... so sec and sensu are different things ...
 
Stephen
 
 

From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; gread at actrix.gen.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Oops!  

I said: 

> Berendsohn was talking about "potential taxa" when he proposed "sec.", so
> I'm pretty sure that he was talking about nomenclature (not taxonomy).

That last bit should have been:
" I'm pretty sure that he was talking about taxonomy (not nomenclature)."

I'll blame it on the rocking ship.....

Rich


More information about the Taxacom mailing list