[tcs-lc] [Tcs-lc] concepts of Higher taxa

[Richard Pyle]

> > I think there are two terms that we cold coin here that may be useful
> > 1) Nomenclatural placement
> > 2) Conceptual placement
>
> I think this would be useful. Note that in the earlier LC I tried
> to introduce
> an informal "higher taxon placement" element as provided in the
> nomenclatural publication.

I think the only Nomenclatural placements should be (child-->parent):

Subspecific-->Species
Species-->Genus
Infrageneric-->Genus

If we can agree on "name objects" that consist of a maximum of three
basionym/protonym units (First always genus or higher monomial (latter with
no second or third parts); Second either species or Infrageneric (latter
with no third part); Third always subspecific (only if first is genus and
second is species); then I think we can ignore all other cases of
"Nomenclatural placement".  In other words, we shouldn't need to treat any
of the following as Nomenclaturally connected:

Monomial-->HigherMonomial
Genus-->HigherMonomial
Species-->Infrageneric
Subspecies-->Genus (should be inherited via species)
Subspecies-->Infrageneric

> Purely nomenclatural, only the genus and nomenclatural code assignment of
> infrageneric ranks are required.

By "infrageneric", do you mean "super-specific", or do you mean names at any
rank below genus?

> However, in my work, in the absence of a
> formal revisionary classification, I often find if highly helpful to be
> informed about the publishing authors initial classification,
> where one is given.

I agree, but I think this should be represented in TCS as "Conceptual
placement", not "Nomenclatural placement".

> The other problem, a coherent
> classification system versus a singular containment statement to
> me is still
> unsolved.

Can you explain this?  I don't follow.

Aloha,
Rich