[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Donat Agosti agosti at amnh.org
Fri Sep 9 01:54:03 CDT 2011


Stephen
Thanks for this clarification. It is what I meant. Creating a label that
indicates that this is a redescription of an existing taxa, and was the
author of the redescription that is following.

Donat


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011 9:22 AM
To: gread at actrix.gen.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

actually, 'labelling' was not exactly the correct English word ... the issue
(which I raised initially on Species-ID) was that Plazi was creating pages
with the "label" (page title) of the kind Aus bus (Smith, 2000), when Smith
(2000) was just a redescription of Aus bus ...


From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

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.

Geoff


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.



_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as: 
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here





More information about the Taxacom mailing list