[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Sep 9 01:53:59 CDT 2011


>So I'm not sure where you're getting this particular interpretation
 
as I said, I am getting it from the way sec actually is used within ZooBank (though perhaps not in the underlying data model)
 
>No.  The "sec" designation in ZooBank is specifically for records with *NO* LSID
 
No, I said it was *like a kind of LSID* ... Aus sec Smith 2000 itself is *like* an LSID for the particular use of the name Aus in Smith 2000
 
on ION, they do actually assign LSIDs to such uses of names, sometimes
 
to recap, if Aus bus is a new species in Smith (2000), but genus Aus is not new, then Aus sec Smith 2000 in ZooBank is just a dummy genus in which to register Aus bus. It seems to me to be completely divorced from any issues relating to taxonomic concepts of the kind usually indicated by use of the term 'sensu'. Aus sec Smith 2000 has no meaning outside of the context of the particular publication of Smith (2000), whereas Aus sensu Smith 2000 does have such meaning ...
 
Stephen
 

From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

> a confusion seems to arise here for the following reason:
> suppose Smith and Brown both use the name Aus bus L. 1758

Yes.
 
> they could be using the name with the same type but different 
> taxonomic concepts  (different "sensu"), or with the same type 
> and the same concept

Yes.
 
> *but*, they could be using the name with different types! 

Yes.

> If so, one of them would be wrong, but what sense can we make 
> of the use of a name with the wrong type?? 

That's a misapplied usage. (Or a misidentification.)

> Or, what about use of a name before and then after subsequent type
designation?

Yes, happens a lot.
 
> Also, if Smith or Brown doesn't specify the L. 1758 bit of Aus bus L.
1758, 
> and there are homonyms, then what?

Then we have to figure out which of the homonyms each author was implying.
 
> Logically, 'sec' functions in ZooBank merely as a sort of LSID creator for
a 
> name used in a work, not Aus bus L. 1758 sec Smith 2000, but Aus bus sec
2000. 

No.  The "sec" designation in ZooBank is specifically for records with *NO*
LSID (except for glitches in the user interface, which need to be fixed).
It simply means "this name as used in this reference, which was not the
original description of the name".

>It just means that Smith (2000) used the string 'Aus bus' as a scientific
name. 

Actually no -- the way the data model is structured, the "sec" specifically
refers to the protonym Aus bus Linn. 1758; not the text string "Aus bus".
That's not exactly how it's reflected in the user-interface; but as we both
know, there are many aspects of the UI that need to be fixed.

> It leaves everything else open. But, Aus bus  L. 1758 sensu Smith 2000 
> means that Smith (2000) used a taxonomic concept that may very well 
> be quite different to Linnaeus' concept, but which includes the type 
> specimen of Aus bus  L. 1758. 

Yes, exactly!  That's what the "sec." designator is intended to mean.  A
name, created by an earlier author, re-used by a subsequent author.  Except
in cases of misapplication/misidentification, presumably the two taxon
concept circumscriptions (original and subsequent) both include the type
specimen, but beyond that, the taxon concepts may be congruent, overlapping,
or nested (non-overlapping would mean they don't share the type specimen,
and therefore represents a misapplication or misidentification).

> sensu  referes to a concept, but sec refers to a name in a work

Not according to my use of "sec." and "sensu", and as far as I know, not
according to Berendsohn. So I'm not sure where you're getting this
particular interpretation.

Aloha,
Rich


More information about the Taxacom mailing list