[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Sep 9 03:09:56 CDT 2011

> as I said, I am getting it from the way sec actually is 
> used within ZooBank (though perhaps not in the 
> underlying data model)

Can you give me some specific examples?
> 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

OK, sorry -- I misunderstood what you meant.
> 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. 

Ah!  Now I see where you are coming from!  By "dummy genus" I assume you
mean the "placeholder" genus option (for when you don't want to research the
full details of the genus).  Yes, this will show up as a "sec." record in
ZooBank -- but not because it's a dummy/placeholder -- it shows up because
it means that the publication used the genus name, but was not the original
description of the genus name.  When you enter a new species in a new pub
that was combined with an old genus from an old pub, and the old genus is
already registered, then you get the same "sec" designation.  In other
words, the "sec." Usage in ZooBank is not limited to only the "placeholder"
genus feature -- it's all cases when a new species is described in a
pre-existing genus, to indicate that the pub for the new species had a usage
instance for the old genus, but is not the pub in which the old genus was
first established in accordance with the Code.

> 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 ...

Now I understand where you got the impression that "sec" was only
nomenclatural.  In ZooBank, "sec" means "treated in this reference, but not
originally established in this reference".  It applies to the usage, which
can represent either the name, or the concept, or both.  So there is no
implied difference between "sec." and "sensu" in the ZooBank context.

If you want to define "sec." and "sensu" in that way, I think that's
perfectly legitimate to do -- but it's not what is intended by ZooBank, or
me, or (I'm pretty sure) Berendsohn.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list