LinneanCoreTCSRelationshipTypes

GregorHagedorn - Sat Dec 11 2004 - Version 1.3
Parent topic: LinneanCoreTCSDiscussion
I am aware that the proposed LCNameCreationTypeDiscussion and LinneanCoreNomenclaturalStatus each cover some part of what in TCS 0.8 are enumerated values used in Relationships/Relationship/@type. Here I try to annotate these relationships and provide some - hopefully constructive - critique of the values in TCS 0.8:

• JMS: I don't see why it is necessary to discuss on it here; relatinsihps should be covered by TCS as much as possible, and hence TCS Wiki is better place to discuss. What may fall into LC scope would be relationsihps between name-strings, e.g. clerical error. -- 19 Nov 2004
• Gregor: you are probably correct about the place for those relationships that are clearly only TCS-domain. I differ with you in that I believe the fundamental, nomenclatural relationships should already be covered in the nomenclatural standard LinneanCore. I therefore went through them all and tried to discuss/annotate them. -- Gregor

LCNameCreationTypeDiscussion covers the following 10 values:
- TCS."is basionym for"/"has basionym"
- TCS."is recombination of"/"has recombination"
- TCS."is nomen novum for"/"has nomen novum "
- TCS."is validation of"/"has validation"
- TCS."is sanctioned by"/"is sanctioning"
I do not understand what the intended semantics of "is basionym for"/"has basionym" versus "is recombination of"/"has recombination" in TCS are. Assuming we can merge them, the remaining 2 x 4 relations can be expressed in a single "special nomenclatural" relation, which defines name-based relations that are valid whether or whether not the original description/character circumscription concept is changed (= "emended") or not.

LinneanCoreNomenclaturalStatus covers (and goes much beyond; most nomenclatural status opinions are not relational and not addressed by TCS at all) the following values:
- TCS."is conserved against"/"has conserved name"
- - Note: The semantics may have to be clarified here, esp. what is meant by "name" in the reverse role. There is no TCS status for "Conserved spelling" as opposed to nom. cons./rej. in ICBN - this may have to be added if in TCS any different spelling should be treated as a new concept
- TCS."is later homonym of"/"has later homonym"
- TCS."is treated as later homonym of"/"has homonym treated as later "
I propose to treat these as RelatedNames pointers and Status under LinneanCoreNomenclaturalStatus. The reasoning in these relations is purely name-string based and has no influence on any concept (type concept, character circumscription, hierarchy). Also note the problem discussed in LinneanCoreNomenclaturalStatus that status information may be available, but not the relation. A possible change in TCS might be to allow one-sided relations, where the other side is defined as "yet unknown"?

Other values:
- TCS."is ambiregnal of"
Does this belong into LC? Is this something that the original author would cite, or is it later assessment? Is it based on nomenclatural type reasoning or on character circumscription? Would two different relation roles in TCS be appropriate? -- I really don't know the answer to this...

- TCS."is lectotypification of"/"has lectotypification"
- TCS."is neotypification of "/"has neotypification"
... special kind of type information, not yet discussed for LC. These do change the nomenclatural and taxonomic concepts.
- TCS."has conserved type"/"is conserved type of"
... regarding the last, just my lack of knowledge: is there a difference of conserved type to lecto/neotypification? I do find the following in ICBN. It clarifies that both specimen and name-types are meant but it does not clarify to me the question whether the conservation referred to is neo/lectotypification in the specimen case and perhaps conservation status (i.e. actions covered elsewhere) or whether this indeed is a separate nomenclatural action and relationship:

• 14.9. A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated by the author or determined by application of the Code (see also Art. 10.4). Such a name may be conserved either from its place of valid publication (even though the type may not then have been included in the named taxon) or from a later publication by an author who did include the type as conserved. In the latter case the original name and the name as conserved are treated as if they were homonyms (Art. 53), whether or not the name as conserved was accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon named.
  • Ex. 8. Bromus sterilis L. (1753) has been conserved from its place of valid publication even though its conserved type, a specimen (Hubbard 9045, E) collected in 1932, was not originally included in Linnaeus's species.
  • Ex. 9. Protea L. (1753) did not include the conserved type of the generic name, P. cynaroides (L.) L. (1771), which in 1753 was placed in the genus Leucadendron. Protea was therefore conserved from the 1771 publication, and Protea L. (1771), although not designed to be a new generic name and still including the original type elements, is treated as if it were a validly published homonym of Protea L. (1753).

(Minor problem in TCS: "has nomen novum " and some other values have has a blank at the end.)

-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 19 Nov 2004