[Taxacom] Revision using taxonomic concept approach
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Oct 22 21:57:21 CDT 2015
The Berendsohn paper (and everything alse I have seen on the topic) just isn't very clear! Several distinct issues appear to be conflated. One specific issue which I can understand concerns lumping/splitting of genera. The same generic epithet (with the same type species) can be used to refer to different generic concepts. In such cases, if you simply identify a species as X sp., the question can be asked "What concept of X?" A good (actually bad!) example would be Nothofagus. If I said that a plant specimen is a Nothofagus sp., I could mean Nothofagus in the traditional (sensible) sense, or Nothofagus in the restricted (idiotic!) sense of Heenan & Smissen. However, the "sec" terminology doesn't really work that well here. We could say Nothofagus sec Heenan & Smissen, and that seems meaningful, but what shall we call the alternative, i.e. Nothofagus in the traditional sense. Nothofagus sec ???
On Fri, 23/10/15, Nico Franz <nico.franz at asu.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Revision using taxonomic concept approach
To: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Friday, 23 October, 2015, 3:26 PM
The "sec." is officially due to Berendsohn
Some of this practice is quite
longstanding, by now, and my (incomplete)
understanding is that folks such as Jim Croft and Greg
National Botanic Gardens (and of TDWG fame) first developed
this kind of
annotation for herbarium databases that could hold multiple
views, some 25 years ago.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom