[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Sep 9 01:56:28 CDT 2011

sounds good to me ... I was just worried about page names of the form Aus bus (Smith, 2000), where Smith (2000) wasn't the original authority, and the species has never changed genus! I found such a citation style to be grossly misleading ...

From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

How about replacing "sec" with either "cited in:" or "used in:"

Would make things clearer, I think...

Regards - Tony

> -----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 1:58 PM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly
> we really need input from systems analysts and/or logicians!
>  a confusion seems to arise here for the following reason:
> suppose Smith and Brown both use the name Aus bus L. 1758
> 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
> *but*, they could be using the name with different types! If so, one of
> them would be wrong, but what sense can we make of the use of a name
> with the wrong type?? Or, what about use of a name before and then
> after subsequent type designation?
> Also, if Smith or Brown doesn't specify the L. 1758 bit of Aus bus L.
> 1758, and there are homonyms, then what?
> 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. It just means that Smith (2000) used the string 'Aus bus'
> as a scientific name. 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. For example, Linnaeus
> used the genus Dermestes for just about any beetle found in domestic
> habitats, and the genus is still in use today, but Dermestes L. 1758
> sensu current authors is a very different taxonomic concept.
> sensu  referes to a concept, but sec refers to a name in a work
> So, I can't say what your intention was in using 'sec' in ZooBank, I
> can only say how it functions in practice ...
> 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 3:04 PM
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly
> > Aaaarrrggghhh!!!
> > Here's the problem:
> > on ZooBank, we use sec in a nomenclatural sense, unrelated to the
> above
> taxonomic sense!
> Well, not really.  My intent in GNUB (=ZooBank) was to indicate
> "non-original author; usage of a name".  That is, a subsequent usage of
> a
> name, in contrast to the original usage of the name (original
> nomenclatural
> act that established the name under the Code).  In my mind, "usage of a
> name" encompases both nomenclatural and taxonomic usages of the name.
> It's
> just a generic way of saying "this name as used in this reference", in
> a way
> that avoids confusion with "this name as established as new in this
> reference".
> > Consider NAME sensu Smith, 2000
> > If Brown (2002) writes of the same taxonomic concept,
> > then Brown (2002) also uses NAME sensu Smith, 2000
> You'll have to be more explicit in what you mean by "NAME" in this
> example.
> Consider Aus bus Linn. 1758 sensu Smith 2000.
> If Brown also makes reference to Aus bus Linn. 1758, then we have: Aus
> bus
> Linn. 1758 sensu Brown 2002.
> Then we have a separate question:  how does Aus bus Linn. 1758 sensu
> Smith
> 2000 compare to Aus bus Linn. 1758 sensu Brown 2002?  Congruent?
> Overlapping? Contains/Contained In? Excludes?  And, for that matter,
> how
> does each compare with Aus bus Linn. 1758 sensu Linn. 1758?
> > but, nevertheless, in the ZooBank sense of sec, NAME sec Brown, 2002
> > is a distinct entity from NAME sec Smith, 2000,
> Yes.
> > even though both are just NAME sensu Smith, 2000!
> No.
> It may well be that the taxon concept represented by NAME sensu Brown
> 2002
> is congruent with the taxon concept represented by NAME sensu Smith
> 2000
> (which, I think, is what you mean when you say they "both are just NAME
> sensu Smith, 2000").
> > So, on my understanding, NAME "sec sensu ZooBank" [sorry!]
> Ouch!
> > Brown, 2002 just means a subsequent usage of NAME, not established
> as new
> by Brown (2002),
> Yes.
> > and has nothing to do with taxonomic concepts ...
> Not necessarily.  In ZooBank, you don't see any indication of
> taxonomy.  But
> in my mind, any usage instance carries both nomenclatural bits and
> taxonomic
> bits, and as far as I'm concerned, the "sec"/"sensu" convention should
> focus
> on usage instance labeling, and leave it to other metdata to deal with
> names
> stuff vs. concept stuff.
> Rich
> _______________________________________________
> 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