It really just happened. species, genus and taxon as tags came into existence 
at similar times. It may well be that my use of taxon was inspired by your own 
initiative on Flickr.
Currently the position is very simple:
   - species and genus are preferred tags for taxon:species and taxon:genus
   - species and taxon are often, but by no means always, tag synonyms.

There is little harm in duplicating keys for taxon & species, and in practice 
genus is nearly always useful (if valid) with either tag. This is because 
parsing the range of potential values in taxon or species can be a real pain.
The tree import in Vienna shows very well how these tags can work together, 
when a tree is a known cultivar. The tagging uses something like:

genus=Populusspecies=Populus nigrataxon=Populus nigra 

There were objections to using taxon on the basis that people wouldn't know 
what it meant: my feeling is that if you are confidently identifying trees to 
species then it is likely that you do!
Of course there are lots of rubbish values in both sets of tags (check out 
Bologna), and funny problems exist with names for certain species such as 
London Plane, where the accepted name in the UK may be different from other 
European countries. It may also be useful to have some sort of convention for 
species:iso2cd and genus:iso2cd along the lines of "Pedunculate Oak" for the 
case where the vernacular name corresponds to the taxon, and "oak" where the 
vernacular name is more generic.
Jerry Clough

       From: Andy Mabbett <>
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <> 
 Sent: Monday, 27 April 2015, 16:44
 Subject: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
The wiki page for "Tag:natural=tree:"





The latter pair is a subset of the former; and thus redundant.

How should this be resolved?

Andy Mabbett

Tagging mailing list

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to