65 lines
2.6 KiB
Plaintext
65 lines
2.6 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.2;
|
|
access;
|
|
symbols;
|
|
locks; strict;
|
|
comment @# @;
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
date 2007.03.06.17.30.00; author TWikiGuest; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.1;
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
date 2004.11.03.11.50.00; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next ;
|
|
|
|
|
|
desc
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
log
|
|
@Added topic name via script
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@---+!! %TOPIC%
|
|
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099482600" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="LinneanCore"}%
|
|
As argued in LinneanCoreDisentangle, the issues of hierarchy and identity are entangled in the Linnean name system. Any redundant hierarchy (expressing taxonomic opinion) should be distinguished from hierarchy that is required to define name-object identity.
|
|
|
|
*Infrageneric names:*
|
|
|
|
Question: How many ranks are necessary within a Genus to define taxon identity? Having <nop>GenusA, subgenusB, sectionC, and seriesD: Is "GenusA seriesD" sufficient or is "GenusA subgenusB sectionC seriesD" required to define the taxon identity (comparibility by name-string) of "seriesD"?
|
|
|
|
Answer in botany (ICBN §21.1): "The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic name and a subdivisional epithet connected by a term (subgenus, sectio, series, etc.) denoting its rank" and "Note 1. The use within the same genus of the same epithet in names of subdivisions of the genus, even in different ranks, based on different types is illegitimate under Art. 53.". Thus: For "Genus Iris, subgenus Limniris (beardless irises), section Limniris, subsection Apogon, series Sibiricae (Siberian irises)" the name-string <i>"Iris ser. Sibiricae"</i> is identifying (at least when including the nomenclatural authors). There may be no other series Sibiricae in any other section or subgenus within the same genus.
|
|
|
|
Question: Is this the same in zoology? Is the code explicit about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Infraspecific names:*
|
|
|
|
For those ranks covered by the code, only the lowest rank within a species is relavant, all other ranks are redundant. However, additional ranks exist not covered by code, like formae speciales (ICBN 4.4, Note 3) or "race" in botany. These must be provided in addition to the ranks covered by the code.
|
|
|
|
What is the situation in zoology (where the code only governs the subspecies rank) regarding variety and form ranks? What happens if a variety name is used in zoology? Is the subspecies required for name-object-identity?
|
|
|
|
-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 03 Nov 2004
|
|
|
|
PS: (Offhand question: is there a latin word for the "race" rank? "Gens"?)
|
|
|
|
(nothing from this discussion there yet, but perhaps later: see also LinneanCoreExampleNames!)
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 2
|
|
@
|