[Taxacom] Revision using taxonomic concept approach
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Oct 23 13:57:59 CDT 2015
> 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 ???
In order for there to be a "traditional sense", then surely SOMEONE has published a treatment that represents this "traditional sense", no? If many different publications have treated it in the "traditional sense", then the best approach is to pick one that most robustly defines the concept circumscription boundaries, and use that as the "sec." anchor point for the taxon concept.
> 791 times, and each time unclear exactly what they are trying to say!
Which is less clear:
- 791 usages of taxon names without any indication of which taxon concept was intended by each name-usage?
- 791 usages of taxon names with an explicit indication of a particular treatment of each name, representing a more robust concept circumscription definition?
Like Alan, I welcome a shift towards more explicit indication of what sense of a taxon name an author intends to refer to. It almost starts to make what we do resemble something similar to "science"....
More information about the Taxacom