[Zoobank-list] Protonyms, name usage, datanym

[Faunaplan at aol.com]

Dear all,
the following does not answer the question which terms are best, but maybe it 
helps to find out what kind of terms are needed.
I tried to arrange the spectrum of nomina (i.e., names for the Code-governed 
ranks and excluding vernaculars) in 4 categories:
 
1.) Available names, attributes are: CreationEvent (with authorship, 
publication details, type material), nomenclatural status (homonyms, replacement 
names, emendations, objective synonyms, etc.) and we can store taxonomic descisions 
based on such names (up- and downgrading, changes in generic combination, 
subjective synonyms).
And, let's not forget in all bioinformatics issues, we even have an (almost) 
unambiguous human-readable "anchor" for this group of names, - that is the 
original bi- or trinomen based the type (currently "almost" unambiguous because 
of Art. 23.9.5. in ICZN-4!). In my opinion, human-readability - at least in 
part - would be an enormous advantage in curating bioinformatics data!
 
In the following groups we do not have unambiguous CreationEvents and the 
same name string can apply to different taxa. In other words, they only make 
sense in context with a "usage instance" (citation in literature, on labels, 
etc.). So I think we can summarize them generally under "chresonyms" in the widest 
sense: 
 
2.) Unavailable names and citations of names that can be referred to an 
available name (objectively or subjectively); e.g., incorrect spellings, 
infrasubspecific names, subsequent citation of names (correctly or incorrectly applied). 
Again, for this group of names we can use the "anchor" of their available 
counterparts. For the fhe following groups, however, we don't have such anchors:
 
3.) Unavailable names that cannot be referred to an available name, like 
provisional names (e.g., Bombus spec#1"), in litteris or collection label names, 
misapplied names where no valid name exists, or provisional placeholders (e.g., 
"Pterostichus [NN1]") where new replacement names for junior homonyms are not 
yet available. GBIF, for example, has got many provisional names, but I don't 
know how to deal with them? Some such names are precise enough to be 
potentially referrable to an available name so maybe it makes sense to store and 
assign GUIDs for them, too?
 
4.) Finally, the group of unprecise names that cannot be referred to an 
"anchor" binomen, e.g., "Carabus spec.", "Carabidae Gen.spec.", and including 
chresonyms of taxa that have been splitted up later.  
 
Just weekend (or weak end?) ideas...
 
Cheers,
Wolfgang
 
-------------------
Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany
 





   

-- 
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/20080307/0600c9b0/attachment.htm