[Zoobank-list] Protonym, name usage, datanym

[David Eades]

There was an extensive exchange of ideas in the ZooBank Discussion List in
March 2007.  This posting attempts to raise some aspects not addressed in
that exchange.  I would like opinions of others regarding my ideas on how to
deal with LSIDs for misapplied names and related issues.

 

I am currently trying to lay the ground work in Species File Software
(http://software.speciesfile.org <http://software.speciesfile.org/> ) and
the Orthoptera Species File (http://orthoptera.speciesfile.org
<http://orthoptera.speciesfile.org/> ) to enable the assignment of LSIDs to
various kinds of taxon names and concepts.  Richard Pyle's interpretation of
protonyms and name usages is quite appealing, but I run into trouble with
misapplied names.  My tentative solution is to create a new concept, the
"datanym."  For any who are interested, the idea is set out in greater
detail at http://software.speciesfile.org/Design/NamesAndConcepts.aspx.

 

My proposed interpretation of "protonym" seems to fall within the ambiguity
of previous usage.  "Protonym" should be a nomenclatural term.  A
misapplication remains based on the same protonym.  A name usage such as "n.
sp. A" is outside the Code of Nomenclature and cannot be a protonym.

 

"Datanym" comes from one useful way to organize a database.  A datanym is
the intersection between a name and a currently accepted concept.  In this
sense the "name" may be a protonym, or it may be a usage that does not
qualify as a protonym.  Within a database it provides a useful way to
aggregate name usages.  A misapplication creates a new datanym.  This
facilitates grouping citations based on current concepts in the way most
useful to the typical user of taxonomic data.  However, this means that
datanyms can come and go with changes in taxon concepts.  It also means that
if a type series includes multiple species, then that author has
unintentionally created multiple datanyms.

 

"Datanym" might be understood as a nebulous term that takes on precise
meaning only as defined in a particular data structure.  That is not my
intent.  It does match the data structure in Species File Software, and I
hope that has not misled me into making a concept useful only within a
particular data structure.  There seems no need to bother non-technical
users of taxonomic information with the concept of "datanym," but is it
useful for communication among people involved in bioinformatics and for
data exchange?

 

David Eades

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20080302/548c2fff/attachment.htm