This may be of general interest.
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(810)391609 |
Project Leader SIS | Email: [email protected] |
|
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
I am quite curious to learn how precisely you define TAXA.
A taxon is a fluid, temporal group of organisms. A person can apply a name
to this group, depending on their current definition of that group,
including material currently available to them, and methodological
assumptions. Another person may have a different view of that group. One
may see the group as all the same thing, another may view the group as many
different taxa. Also, a person' viewpoint may change over time, as they
review the group, or as new techniques arise to define the objects (e.g.
molecular data).
COLLECTIONS/ORGANISATIONS
In CRM conceptual modelling, we try to differentiate those.
We differentiate these too, but the primary focus tends to be the large
institutional collections. This is also the subject of an international
standard. "BM" is not the organization, but one of our collections (the
major botanical bit held within the Department of Botany). There are also
collections which have a temporary existence (for example personal
herbaria), yet are very important in the object model. Also, it is
possible to have recognisable collections, which cross organisational
boundaries (in the sense of named specimen aggregates), for example
"Exsiccatae".
The term "same" is philosophically questionable, isn't it? Probably as
hard to define as what a specimen is?
It's fairly safe to say a number of branches clipped from the same tree are
going to be the same organism, so that it is possible to have duplicates in
botany, but this rarely applies to zoology.
Also, Morphological Descriptors, Ecological Information, the list goes
on.....
I'd like to learn more those!
There are many approaches to both morphology and ecology from the purely
descriptive to mathematically defined. There are examples, but the field
is large and fluid.
Actually, I am quite interested in a strict definition of these terms :
"Original Element" etc. and how you define "true typification" in contrast
to Linne's approach.
Taxonomy and it's rules have changed over time. A name published 100 years
ago can be valid without meeting all the criteria necessary for a name
published today. Valid publication includes typification.
"The concept of types was unheard of in the eighteenth century, and was
only adopted about a hundred years ago. Linnaeus frequently based his
concept of a given species on a mixture of herbarium material and the
published descriptions and illustrations of earlier authors, and sometimes
on living material too. Consequently there is rarely any single type
specimen in existence, and typification involves identifying each of these
original elements, before a choice is made."
Taken from: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/botany/linnaean/index.html
Anne.
--- End Message ---
