[Taxacom] Taxonomic concepts [Was: Questions on Taxonomic Code of Practice]

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 12 18:49:30 CST 2014


As clear as mud, Jim, as clear as mud!
 
Incidentally, 'auct.' (i.e. 'auctorum'="of authors"), as used in zoology implies misidentification by one or more authors from the past, who aren't specified. It is roughly equivalent to "sensu variouspast authors"
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Monday, 13 January 2014 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxonomic concepts [Was: Questions on Taxonomic Code of Practice]



I am pretty sure botanical convention, if not The Code, accommodates these situations succinctly.


If it is a homonym, the author (plus the combining author, if there is one - I have no idea why you guys throw away this useful piece of information) lets you know what is going on.


If it is a difference of concept, 'sensu' is the signal (we are never really going to get rid of Latin, you know).


If a name is variously illegitimate, 'auct.' is the alert notification.


If the name is a misidentification, 'auct. non' tells you so, and who (or 'auctt. non' if ther have been multiple).


There are probably others I can not remember.


We certainly don't write descriptive sentences to cover this stuff...


jim





On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

Jim,
> 
>In zoology, Aus bus (L. 1758) non XYZ (2013) would more often imply homonymy, not misidentification, i.e. Aus bus (L. 1758) and Aus bus XYZ (2013) are distinct available names (homonyms).
>
>So, we have 3 separate issues, viz. (1) misidentifications; (2) homonymy; and (3) "taxonomic concepts". Of these, (3) doesn't really get explicitly discussed in zoological taxonomy very much at all (at most, sensu lato and sensu stricto get used to distinguish between broader and narrower concepts).
> 
>There isn't a standard terminology to deal unambiguously with (1) , (2) or (3), so there is much potential for confusion!
> 
>Cheers,
> 
>Stephen
>
>
>From: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
>Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
>Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2014 12:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions on Taxonomic Code of Practice
>
>
>
>> Aus bus (L. 1758) sensu XYZ (2013)
>> This implies that Aus bus (L. 1758) was misidentified by XYZ (2013) !
>
>No it doesn't. It means 'in the sense of' or 'as used by'. If it implies anything at all, it is one of difference of interpretation or understanding. If there was a misidentification or similar stuff-up involved, we would/should be more explicit. 'Non' and 'not' have been used for this sort of thing. 
>
>
>
>> The only way is to state in words something like "we are herein
>> following the species concept of XYZ (2013) for Aus bus (L. 1758) ..."
>
>
>
>Which is what 'sensu' means...
>
>
>But as these are taxonomic assertions, none of 'The Codes', being nomenclatural and all, really need to bother themselves with all this. ;)
>
>
>jim 
>
>
>
>


-- 
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://about.me/jrc
'Without the freedom to criticize, there is no true praise. 
- Pierre Beaumarchais
'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.'
- Mark Twain
'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity.'
 - Robert Frost 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list