Home

Taxon Concept Schema – User Guide

1. Synonyms Objective Homotypic Homotypic synonyms are two names that share the same type Under ICZN they are termed Objective Synonyms The ICZN glossary defines the term Objective Synonym as Each of two or more synonyms that denote nominal taxa with the same name bearing type or in the cases of family group and genus group taxa that denote nominal taxa with name bearing types whose own names are themselves objectively synonymous Within TCS homotypic synonyms are handled by links between lt NameObjects gt unless lt NameObjects gt are not being used in which case they can be treated in the same way as heterotypic synonyms see below The lt NameObject gt links that imply homotypic synonyms are lt Basionym gt lt BasedOn gt lt SpellingCorrectionOf gt and lt NomenNovumFor gt lt NameObject id 325 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Fallopia dumetorum L J Holub lt Simple gt lt Basionym gt lt RelatedName ref 326 gt lt Basionym gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 326 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Polygonum dumetorum L lt Simple gt lt NameObject gt 14 4 2 Type Il Synonyms Subjective Heterotypic Frequently authors of taxon concepts provide a list of synonyms in addition to the homotypic synonyms dealt with above These lists are usually just lists of names and not references to concepts with a sensu or according to authority su
2. NameObjects gt and when lt TaxonConcepts gt e lt TaxonConcept gt elements are used to represent real world taxa as published They are the basic unit of taxonomic data exchange Generally whenever a scientific name is used a TaxonConcept is implied All taxonomic opinion can be expressed using lt TaxonConcept gt elements and the relationships between them e lt NameObject gt elements do not represent taxa They serve only as abstract nomenclatural data structures that encapsulate the core rules of the different nomenclatural codes Their purpose is to prevent nomenclatural statements becoming confused with statements about the circumscription of and relationships between different taxon concepts e No taxonomic opinion can be expressed using lt NameObject gt elements in TCS e As a rule of thumb if you are dealing with anything beyond a type specimen and references to it you are talking about a TaxonConcept of some form 10 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide 13 2 Linking between lt NameObject gt elements lt NameObject gt elements can be linked to each other in various ways to signify different kinds of nomenclatural relationship Most of these relationships are apparent from the names of the elements involved or are documented in the Specific Usage Examples section below lt NameObject gt linking should never be used to express taxonomic relationships only nomenclatural facts There are situations where two
3. Simple This field should contain only the words that form the name It should not contain rank authorship or any other qualifiers For scientific names it will contain one two or three words For cultivated plant names it may contain more but any special characters including the quotes round the cultivar epithet should be omitted 16 1 4 NameObject Year A four digit representation of the year in which this name was published This will be the same as the date of the publication in the lt PublishedIn gt element Note that this is the year the combination was published not the year the basionym was published if this is a comb nov This applies even in zoology where the year of basionym publication is often quoted even when the epithet is combined differently There are fields in the lt CanonicalAuthorship gt element for quoting basionym dates correctly for animals 16 2 lt TaxonConcept gt Signature fields 16 2 1 TaxonConcept AccordingTo AuthorTeam Simple This field should contain the authors of the concept Two situations are envisaged one where concepts appear in printed publications and the other where concepts are published on line When representing a printed concept the field should contain the unabbreviated surnames of the authors in the order they appear in the publication separated by spaces Initials and any punctuation marks should be omitted If there are more than three authors only the first two author names should be in
4. T E EE A EE T A E 8 1213 Ext rn l referente 5 hoc scx snrea r mnao a a a i an endea iasi 8 12 1 4 Simple instance document design ssesesessessesessessressessressesssressstessrrsseteseresserrsseeese 8 12 2 PlaceholderType Complex Ty perc vaiisicssscstiseannstaecattarsacaschiinucntvet diy wehusseleumenabeemattasaers 9 123 Meta Datan a PT E ea RnR ee 9 124 PUD CATIONS i Aeir vitae ae vases Sheets EE S EEE da ee E A aaves 9 12 S VOUCHERS aeo areena EEEE E E E N EA E ke esi naa Coy awa E taba S 10 126 IN AIMED COIS mnia a a toe a A E E Eaa 10 AD OI Eo a ES I IE E E E E A A A E moma g eae tassaeee 10 12 8 Relations nip ASSETS cscs anvessteedadyaresbse tinue aunsaleeied uted cndeues chan ven tasss dulerined enilseteaieveiteeseaeeuens 10 13 How to seth TCS cirri heee ssa wonnssde guste E pees oes a E led AM oay wee 10 13 1 When to use lt NameObjects gt and when lt TaxonConcepts gt cccccccsseeseeteeeeeteeeeeeeees 10 13 2 Linking between lt NameObject gt clemiSnts ses sxsosites veatiycoacs acadepeds beeen Lael araeiee eee staes 11 13 3 When to use lt RelationshipAssertion gt and lt TaxonConcept gt lt Relationships gt 11 13 4 Verbatim representation of original publications cccecceescesseeeeeeeeeteeeeeteeeeeeeeeeeeeees 12 t4 Specific s ge examples mien e a A EE AE E EE E EEE A anaes 12 14 1 Basionyms and New Combinations ICZN vs ICBN sessessssssssseserresesesssessseessersssressee 12 1
5. XML attributes are referred to in the text they are preceded by an to make it clear we are referring to XML attributes of instance documents not hypothetical notions e When the names of XML Schema types appear they are surrounded by curled brackets like this This differentiates them from elements that can be instantiated e When XML examples are given they contain only the elements necessary to illustrate the current point They are not valid XML documents but should validate if included correctly in valid TCS instance documents XML in actual instance documents is likely to be far more complete 5 History The need for acommon mechanism for the providers of taxonomic information to exchange data with other providers and users of varying expertise in taxonomy was recognized at TDWG Lisbon 2003 As a result J Kennedy was appointed Chair of the Taxonomic Names Subgroup to lead the development of a Taxonomic Names Concepts Exchange Schema This process began with a series of consultation meetings covering the range of Taxonomic data providers and users specifically Vegbank Taxonomer SEEK Berlin Model GBIF Nomencurator Species 2000 IT IS and IPNI and informal discussion with APNI From these meetings a Strawman Schema TCS was developed and presented at a meeting on Taxonomic Exchange Standards held at the eScience Centre in Edinburgh in May 2004 to which all interested parties were invited to attend and contribute This schema focussed on
6. a form attribute in the lt TaxonConcept gt that can be set to the value hybrid to indicate that a taxon is of hybrid origin when it s parentage is not known A data consumer can make decisions on how to render a lt TaxonConcept gt on the basis of whether this flag is present or a relationship of the appropriate type It is also possible for a data supplier to include an X or multiplication sign within the lt TaxonConcept gt lt Name gt element Hybrids are excluded from the ICZN under Art 1 3 1 14 11 Autonyms Autonyms are names that are automatically created under the ICBN to refer to the part of a taxon that is not included in a subdivision of that taxon at a particular rank Autonyms are only created below the rank of genus See ICBN Articles 22 and 26 ICZN does not have the notion of autonyms The schema does not take a position on autonyms Should a data supplier wish to provide TaxonConcepts that circumscribe autonyms then they can although some workers would question whether this is theoretically possible 23 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide If need be NameObjects can be created that provide the autonym name in canonical form with details of the publication which triggered their creation See ICBN Article 32 6 14 12 Anamorphs and Teleomorphs The ICBN allows for the naming of mitotic asexual morphs of fungi ICBN Art 59 Some definitions may be useful at this point e Anamorphic Taxon A taxon contai
7. abstract definition of a element This means that a number of different elements within a schema can have the same centrally defined structure although they may have different names It is also possible for elements to extend a type definition and add to or 7 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide override some of the structure All the elements based on ReferenceType have at least two optional attributes ref and linkType and they have optional string content The ref attribute contains the id of a resource the linkType attribute contains the location kind of resource The content of the element contains a string representation of the resource There are three basic ways the ReferenceType elements can be used as a non reference as an internal reference and as an external reference here illustrated with the lt PublishedIn gt element that occurs throughout the schema 12 1 1 Non reference reference lt PublishedIn gt Clapham Tutin amp amp Moore 1987 lt PublishedIn gt i If both the attributes are missing from the tag then the instance of ReferenceType is not acting as a reference to another resource but actually contains the data This is especially useful if the data being published is not atomised beyond the level of the reference If for example the database contains a single string field to hold the place of publication for names then the value of that field can be contained within the lt PublishedIn gt element
8. and there is no need to create separate lt Publication gt elements Likewise with voucher specimens and other links including those in lt TaxonConcepts gt lt Relationships gt 12 1 2 Internal reference lt PublishedIn ref 123 gt Clapham Tutin amp amp Moore 1987 lt PublishedIn gt lt PublishedIn ref 123 gt If a ref attribute is present but there is no linkType attribute the reference is presumed to be the id of an element within the current document In the case of the lt PublishedIn gt element this would be a lt Publication gt element In the case of a lt Name gt element it would be a lt NameObject gt If the reference has text content then the text is taken to be a summary of the content of the element referenced By convention this should be the same as the content of the lt Simple gt element in the target element if it has one or if the reference is pointing to a lt TaxonConcept gt it should be the name plus the content of the lt Simple gt element from the lt AccordingTo gt element 12 1 3 External reference lt PublishedIn linkType external ref 123 gt Clapham Tutin amp amp Moore 1987 lt PublishedIn gt lt PublishedIn linkType external ref 123 gt If there is a linkType attribute present in the element and it has a value of anything other than local then the reference is to a resource outside the current document This is what the possible values of
9. concepts and inherited the Names subschema from the ABCD Schema The TCS was favourably received although some changes or extensions were suggested 3 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide which were taken into account in preparation for presenting the draft schema at TDWG Christchurch 2004 In May 2004 Jerry Cooper proposed an alternative schema Linnean Core to TCS to focus more specifically on Names issues particularly as seen by Nomenclators which was initially distributed only to GBIF ECAT members but was not planned to be developed further by Jerry The draft schema was presented at TDWG Christchurch and received a mixed reception The main problem appeared to be that Names were being treated as part of a Concept and some users wanted to be able to deal with names independently In addition it was felt that not all name issues had been addressed A Linnean core sub group of the Names sub group was formed to investigate in depth the name issues which were currently represented in the Name element and through Nominal concepts in the TCS As a result Linnean Core was modified and extended and much discussion took place over the relationship between the two The current Schema takes what we consider to be the best work from both Linnean core and TCS combined into a coherent schema which can satisfy the needs of all taxonomic name and concept users The major difference from the schema presented at Christchurch being that Names have been elevated t
10. has the notion of standardised signature fields These are specified ways of citing existing information in order to help the process of name and concept resolution The following points should be noted e Signature fields do not offer a guarantee of being globally unique There will be collisions but these collisions should be very rare Signatures are designed to be possible to create from most taxonomic databases and computationally cheap to compare using simple string comparison algorithms They are functional not ideal e The signature fields do not include the name authorship This is because of the vast range of ways in which author names have been quoted and stored in the past A data consuming application may well choose to compare objects on the basis of matching signature fields and only then look at the name authorship fields e The completion of signature fields as indicated here is optional but their use would significantly enhance the ability of receiving applications to process the data The following elements within a TCS instance document are considered to be part of the signature 26 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide 16 1 lt NameObject gt Signature fields 16 1 1 NameObject nomenclaturalCode This is a controlled vocabulary to indicate which code governs the use of the name 16 1 2 NameObject Rank code This is a controlled vocabulary to indicate the rank of the name 16 1 3 NameObject CanonicalName
11. linkType mean external A link to a resource in another document It is presumed that the target will be returned as a valid TCS instance e local This is the id of another element within this document The default e other A link to another resource external to the current document that is not in TCS format e g a jpeg html page pdf DarwinCore or ABCD If the element has text content then it is taken as having the same meaning as above i e It is a summary of the resource pointed at 8 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide 12 1 4 Simple instance document design By using a value of external in linkType it is possible to avoid ever publishing more than a single type of information within a TCS document i e Only one of lt Publications gt lt Vouchers gt lt NameObjects gt or lt TaxonConcepts gt All other element types can be referred to using external references with text summaries and can be fetched only if required by the consuming application This method has it s drawbacks but maybe a useful approach for some data providers 12 2 PlaceholderType Complex Type Like the ReferenceType complex type PlaceholderType is integral to the way TCS works The schema s main role is to communicate the existence of taxon concepts and how they are related It does not contain the ability to actually describe concepts beyond listing specimens and other concepts Should character text or other descriptive data need
12. lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 125 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Pedicularis inconspicua P C Tsoong lt Simple gt lt PublishedIn gt Bull Brit Mus Nat Hist 2 17 Nov 1955 lt PublishedIn gt lt LaterHomonymOf gt lt RelatedName ref 123 gt lt LaterHomonymOf gt lt NameObject gt Publication homonyms are characterised by having the same authors and same types 14 3 4 Type IV Combination Homonyms Sometimes a new combination is made more than once thus creating a homonym An example is Trillium texanum Buckley which was recombined as a variety of Trillium pusillum twice Susan Farmer 2005 pers comm 1 Trillium pusillum var texanum Buckley J L Reveal amp C R Broome in Castanea 46 1 56 1981 2 Trillium pusillum var texanum Buckley C F Reed in Phytologia 50 4 279 283 1982 The combination made by C F Reed is a later homonym and so invalid In TCS these two names should be represented by two lt NameObjects gt The C F Reed name should have a lt LaterHomonymOf gt link to the earlier combinations If a lt NameObject gt is presented for Trillium texanum then both combinations should have a lt Basionym gt link to it lt TaxonConcept gt elements should be created to represent the different concepts the two different authors have of the names not shown in the example below lt NameObject id 123 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt 16 of 28 T
13. or just a institution specific identifier they need to make clear the contract associated with that ID and how the object it refers to might change in the future An example would be a ID for a NameObject It may be acceptable for a NameObject to be changed by the addition of a lectotypification event It may not be acceptable for the spelling of the actual name to be changed Such a change would affect the meaning of any TaxonConcepts that referenced this NameObject Changes such as spelling corrections should instead result in the creation of new NameObjects This is an area that needs further discussion in the context of GUIDs 12 Summary of Schema Structure The XML Schema definition language has the ability to contain it s own annotations There are tools available to generate documents in different formats from these internal annotations TCS is well commented internally and documentation is generated from these comments for each release so there is little point in discussing each and every element in this guide What is given here is a broad overview of the main sections that might occur in a TCS Document and what they are for 12 1 ReferenceType Complex Type This is not a structural element within the schema but is an important complex type that is used multiple times in different places Understanding the way that elements of this type can be used is central in understanding how the schema can be used In XML Schema a complex type is an
14. to be communicated then TCS allows for instances of foreign schemas to be embedded within the lt TaxonConcept gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt element Neither does TCS provide detailed break downs of meta data or voucher specimens but allows for foreign schemas to be included There is also an element to allow this to occur within lt Publication gt lt Voucher gt and lt Metadata gt The PlaceholderType complex type provides the mechanism for inclusion of these external schemas It is a wrapper around the XMLSchema any element type and anyAttribute attribute type The example below shows the use of the lt PublicationDetailed gt element to pass a piece of valid XML in the TCS publication format Clearly the provider of the data has to be sure that the consumer will know how to handle data in the schema included lt Publication id 123 gt lt Simple gt Clapham Tutin amp amp Moore 1989 Flora of the British Isles lt Simple gt lt PublicationDetailed gt lt Publication xmlns http www tdwg org schemas tcs publication 1 00 xsi schemaLocation http www tdwg org schemas tcs publication 1 00 publication xsd gt lt Author gt Clapham A R Tutin T G amp amp Moore D M lt Author gt lt Title gt Flora of the British Isles lt Title gt lt Edition gt 3 lt Edition gt lt DatePublished gt 1989 lt DatePublished gt lt Publication gt lt PublicationDetailed gt lt Publication gt 12 3 MetaDat
15. 4 2 Classifications Taxonomic Hierarchies ccccccccsssccesssccessccsessccesesseeeeesseeeeeseesseeseseaes 12 14 3 HOMONYIS oiire istan i a ar ets e a a E a dual ii TE 14 14 3 1 Type L Real HOmMONyNS kernerne iran n et E E NSE a AEEA 14 14 3 2 Type I Correction HoMmonymSs ssesssesesseesseesersrossresersresssesetsressresressresssressresseres 15 14 3 3 Type II Publication homonyms a5 doe on ee eee AR eee 15 14 3 4 Type IV Combination Homon ying ciscielesceunesu dts oesus cages veclanoeateeeeersileuase Mi geeiacidests 16 14 3 5 Junior and Senior HOMON VMS iia cescsdaiesreees sraesicanecodns outaesdtiacityns Senenealenassteavieedetaes 17 14 3 6 Primary and Secondary HOMONYMG ceeceeceeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeceseeeeeeceseeeeeceseeeseeenseeees 18 14 3 7 Earlier Homonyms of Sanctioned Names ccccccceesseseseeeseeeeeneeeesneeeeeneeeeeaeeeeseeeees 18 MEARS VOM 11S oe co electra cada a E Sua E tue Rasa ted e delat E a a a 18 14 4 1 Type I Synonyms Objective Homotypic 200 cecceecceseceseeeeeceseeeseeeeseeeeeaeeeeeeeees 18 14 4 2 Type II Synonyms Subjective Heterotypic cceccecscccesscceeneeceeneeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeees 18 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide 14 4 3 Type III Synonyms Concept relationships cccccccsseccesceeeeseeceeteeeeeaeeeseneeees 19 14 4 4 Type IV Synonyms Pro parte relatiomships oayaccscsencesesivnecsnesdhcgxeetancensebuncraeatncerasdeae 19 14 5 VOT CAL NO cystine gas resia
16. 4 8 Vernacular Names TCS allows the mark up of vernacular names Vernacular names are dealt with entirely within the lt TaxonConcepts gt part of the schema The lt NameObjects gt area of the schema is only for marking up names that are governed by one of the nomenclatural codes Vernacular names are stored in the lt Name gt element within the lt TaxonConcept gt element The fact that the lt Name gt contains a vernacular name should be indicated by setting the scientific attribute to false There is an optional language attribute to indicate which language the name is in Two usages patterns are envisaged 14 8 1 Vernacular names mentioned in concept definitions Authors of taxon concepts for scientific names will often provide one or more vernacular names associated with the concept From the point of view of TCS this is logically the same as providing heterotypic synonyms as discussed above We can not be sure what is meant by the author who supplies the vernacular name and we have no description for the concept that is associated with that vernacular name A nominal lt TaxonConcept gt for the vernacular name should therefore be created and the lt TaxonConcept gt containing the circumscription should have a lt Relationship gt of type has vernacular to it This is envisaged as being by far the most common way of marking up vernacular names 21 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide lt TaxonConcept id 123 gt lt Nam
17. Taxon Concept Schema User Guide Roger Hyam editor 2005 05 31 Version 1 0 First Version Table of Contents DC IGS ces aces Soe yace ve enon nes EEEE EA E sane hbe vaseane weds R gage lesa nces sea ay EEN ENAN Eh aa SRA REOL EAER 2 2 Comments Corrections and Suggestions sseesssssseseesssseesressessresressttestesssressreessresssressresseres 3 DRIAL OG OLOA ON ysis E E E E gran cat 3 A CONVeD ONS eee A E rE EE e E E E E a a a tawecenuacteasetents 3 S Histor naa O a e OEE E a O A E a E a E AES 3 6 Rational for a Taxon Concept SCHEMA c ccssecisentsescadansannceecstsndheedeasnesacondsduaeaseaseescesanddoineccstecess 4 7 What are Taxon Concepts and what are they fOr c ce cceccecesccessceseeceeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeaeeneeenseenseeenes 4 S Scientific NATIES esit seis accepts sncniae odes taut cus i a a a ta salt E E asad E E 5 9 What the Taxon Concept Schema is NOT for eseseseseesesssseserseessreserssesseseessessresseeseresseressresse 5 10 Whatisan XML Schema ears iieri a a E E cast 6 IL Whatabout GUDS s tnea a a e raa ten nr E pny eee oe ren 6 11 1 Stability of externally referenced objects ss snssesessesnesseeseessessresressessresresstesressressreessresse 7 12 Summary of Schem Str ct re sae eneon naera rA E asena aa aee ENOS E AE Ri aT AA EEEN ESES 7 12 1 Reference T ype Complex Ty P rsrssi anreisen aa Ea RAEE S 7 12 1 Non referen e referente crioed riinas nierien is sienen i Aiora 8 P A ENT aE
18. a This is a container for meta data that applies to the whole of the current document There is a PlaceHolderType element called lt MetadataDetailed gt that allows for arbitrary extension of the metadata A schema is supplied for use in this place holder It s name space is http www tdwg org schemas tcs metadata 1 00 but other schemas could be used here 12 4 Publications This is a container for lt Publication gt elements Each lt Publication gt has a unique id attribute that allows it to be referenced from elsewhere in the document References to publications may occur in multiple places in lt TaxonConcept gt and lt NameObject gt elements lt Publication gt elements can be extended using the lt PublicationDetails gt element which is of PlaceholderType A schema is supplied for use in this place holder It s name space is http www tdwg org schemas tcs publication 1 00 but other schemas could be used at this point 9 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide 12 5 Vouchers This is a container for lt Voucher gt elements Each lt Voucher gt represents a specimen or illustration lt Vouchers gt have unique id attributes and are referenced from the lt Typification gt section of the lt NameObject gt and from the lt SpecimenCircumscription gt section of lt TaxonConcept gt lt Voucher gt can be extended using the lt Specimen gt element that extends PlaceholderType 12 6 NameObjects This is a container fo
19. a name as viewed from a new combination The basionym is therefore always relative to a new combination A name can t be a basionym in it s own right only relative to another name ICZN does not mention the term basionym but the notion is clearly present in zoological nomenclature as zoologists also have the concept of the new recombination of a name TCS therefore follows the botanical terminology and allows lt Basionym gt links between names and the specification of lt BasionymAuthors gt in recombined names 14 2 Classifications Taxonomic Hierarchies The building of hierarchical classifications involves the linking of taxon concepts together with is child of and has child relationships Taxonomic hierarchies reflect taxonomic opinion and so are expressed with lt TaxonConcept gt elements not lt NameObject gt elements There are however links between lt NameObject gt elements at different ranks and this may lead to confusion The example below illustrates the differences between the two kinds of linking This example shows the placement of Dianthus gratianopolitanus within the genus Dianthus in the family Caryophyllaceae This hierarchy is indicated by the linking between lt TaxonConcept gt elements with Ids 986 987 and 988 Note that only two of these concepts have links to lt NameObject gt elements The family was considered well known and so a break down of the 12 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide scientif
20. aesius Sm lt Simple gt lt CanonicalName gt lt Simple gt Dianthus caesius lt Simple gt lt Genus ref 123 gt Dianthus lt Genus gt lt SpecificEpithet gt caesius lt SpecificEpithet gt lt CanonicalName gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObjects gt lt TaxonConcepts gt lt TaxonConcept type nominal id 986 gt lt Name scientific true gt Caryophyllaceae lt Name gt lt Rank code fam gt family lt Rank gt lt TaxonConcept gt lt TaxonConcept id 987 gt lt Name scientific true ref 123 gt Dianthus L lt Name gt lt AccordingTo gt lt AccordingToSimple gt Clapham Tutin amp amp Moore 1987 lt AccordingToSimple gt lt AccordingTo gt lt Relationships gt lt Relationship type is child of gt lt ToTaxonConcept ref 986 gt lt Relationship gt lt Relationship type is parent of gt lt ToTaxonConcept ref 988 gt lt Relationship gt lt Relationships gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt lt TaxonConcept gt lt TaxonConcept id 988 gt lt Name scientific true ref 124 gt Dianthus gratianopolitanus Vill lt Name gt lt AccordingTo gt 13 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide lt AccordingToSimple gt Clapham Tutin amp amp Moore 1987 lt AccordingToSimple gt lt AccordingTo gt lt Relationships gt lt Relationship type is child of gt lt ToTaxonConcept ref 987 gt lt Relationship gt lt Relationship t
21. at a Cultivar epithet or a cultivar Group epithet or the name of a graft chimera can be attached to the end of a ICBN governed name of genus rank and below This is accomplished in the schema by the use of the optional lt CultivarNameGroup gt element and the appropriate ranks in the TaxonomicRanksEnumeration simple type It should be noted that although the ICNCP stipulates that a cultivar name should be surrounded by single quotes that a cultivar Group should be followed by the word Group and that graft 25 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide ec chimeras should be preceded by a sign none of these things should be included within the lt Published lt CultivarNameGroup gt element The consuming software should render the name appropriately using the correct language for Group etc on the basis of the value of the code attribute in the lt RANK gt element of the lt NameObject gt element 15 1 1 Vernacular alternatives to genus names Article 19 2 example 2 of the ICNCP shows that it is acceptable to use vernacular equivalents for genera or denomination groups e g Apple James Grieve being the equivalent of Malus domestica James Grieve The schema could pass this form of cultivar name in the lt NameObject gt by storing the vernacular part of the name in the lt Uninomial gt element It is strongly recommend that data for general consumption not be published in this way It assumes a single lan
22. ated with this name but hasn t indicated whose As with 2 above this is appealing but of little use Bearing the above discussion in mind the way subjective heterotypic synonyms of this type should be handled in TCS is that the lt TaxonConcept gt for the concept being described should have a lt Relationship gt reference of type has synonym to the nominal concept for the synonymous name This can only be interpreted as the accepted taxon concept including the concept for a synonymous name whose description can never be known 14 4 3 Type Ill Synonyms Concept relationships Sometimes authors of taxon concepts provide a list of synonyms that include some names that are sensu or secundum an authority In these cases the authors are giving some indication as to the concept associated with the synonym In such cases a separate lt TaxonConcept gt should be created to represent the concept defined by the synonym and the accepted concept should have a lt Relationship gt reference of type includes to the concept for the synonym 14 4 4 Type IV Synonyms Pro parte relationships If a synonym is cited as being pro parte in part then the lt TaxonConcept gt being defined should have a lt Relationship gt of type overlaps to the nominal concept for the synonymous name unless of course the synonymous name has a sensu secundum as in the Misapplied Names example belowMisspell in which case the lt Relationship gt should point at a prop
23. axon Concept Schema User Guide lt Simple gt Trillium texanum Buckley lt Simple gt lt PublishedIn gt Proc Acad Nat Sci Philadelphia 1860 443 1861 lt PublishedIn gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 124 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Trillium pusillum Michx var texanum J L Reveal amp amp C R Broome lt Simple gt lt PublishedIn gt Castanea 46 1 56 1981 lt PublishedIn gt lt Basionym gt lt RelatedName ref 123 gt lt Basionym gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 125 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Trillium pusillum Michx var texanum Buckley C F Reed lt Simple gt lt PublishedIn gt Phytologia 50 4 279 283 1982 lt PublishedIn gt lt Basionym gt lt RelatedName ref 123 gt lt Basionym gt lt LaterHomonymOf gt lt RelatedName ref 124 gt lt LaterHomonymOf gt lt NameObject gt If a name collision occurs as a result of two taxa with the same epithet but based on different types both being recombined into the same genus then the homonym is a Type I homonym rather than a Type IV and should be treated as such Combination homonyms are characterised by having the same type and therefore basionym but different publications and combination authors in botany 14 3 5 Junior and Senior homonyms The ICZN uses the terms Junior homonym and Senior homonym These are concisely defined in the ICZN glossary e Junior Homonym O
24. cepts but document instances of the concept However observation datasets might themselves be included as part of a taxon concept definition e g as specimen or character circumscriptions if this is what the creator of the concept intended 10 What is an XML Schema The Taxon Concept Schema is an XML Schema An XML Schema is a means of specifying how an XML document should be structured which elements are permitted where which elements are optional or required and what the elements and their attributes can contain A TCS Document is an XML document containing taxonomic data that conforms to the XML Schema called the Taxon Concept Schema TCS is a data exchange format i e A means of marking up the taxonomic data that is to be communicated It is not a data exchange protocol A TCS document does not know anything about moving between computers It relies on an exchange protocol to achieve this A common mistake is to think of TCS as a database schema It is not a database schema TCS documents should be thought of ephemeral software objects that pass between applications that make use of the their contents It is presumed that the applications on either end of this process will have their own internal ways of representing and processing the data passed All that is required of the schema is that the two applications can map their own data onto it unambiguously Because TCS is expressed as an XML Schema any documents that are pass
25. ch synonyms are dealt with in the next 18 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide section These are heterotypic synonyms names based on different types Under ICZN they are termed Subjective Synonyms and defined in the glossary as Each of two or more names whose synonymy is only a matter of individual opinion i e it is not objective See also Article 61 3 1 In order to appreciate how subjective heterotypic synonyms should be handled in TCS it is worth examining what such a statement of synonymy could mean in terms of taxon concepts 1 The author includes only the type specimen of the synonymous name in their definition of the taxon This is the most literal interpretation of what is presented but is unlikely to convey what the author actually meant by making the statement The author will have known of other concepts associated with the name and is implying that they are included in the concept being described Certainly this is how many workers interpret these synonyms 2 The author has their own concept of a taxon associated with the synonymous name but includes all the members of it within their circumscription of the concept being published This is theoretically appealing but actually of little use as the author does not describe the concept associated with the synonymous name and from their action does not accept it as being a good taxon worthy of a proper name 3 The author accepts some one else s concept associ
26. classifications revisions and databases etc The TCS schema is not designed to facilitate the exchange or documentation of information about Taxon Concepts where this information is not part of a taxonomic revision creating new concepts The amount and variety of additional information that can be potentially assigned to concepts is outside the scope of a taxonomic concept transfer schema but development of domain specific models that use or extend this schema is encouraged XML supports this flexibility by allowing the 5 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide use of different name spaces For example whilst a TCS taxon concept definition may include details of specimen circumscription i e list specimens that are asserted to define the taxon concept datasets that merely include observations identifying specimens as being examples of a taxon concept would reference a defined Taxon Concept not constitute a new or modified concept That is TCS documents are for transferring the definitions of taxon concepts not for detailing observations of these defined concepts Examples of observational datasets that could refer to defined taxon concepts might include ecological field records which record abundance data on a variety taxa descriptive datasets that include descriptions of representative specimens or taxa e specimen records for biological collections The observations recorded in these would not constitute definitions of the con
27. cluded and they should be followed by the words et al The full authorship of the concept will always be available via the lt PublishedIn gt element Transliteration of names should be avoided unless they can t be represented in UTF 8 encoding If the concept is being published on line and does not exist in a paper form then the DNS name of the institution publishing the concept should be used A policy should be formulated for how many sub domains should be cited and this should be stuck to It is recommended that the www sub domain should not be used e g ipni org not www ipni org These DNS names are not expected to resolve to anything now or in future and so artificial sub domains could be created to represent publishing authorities within larger organisation if required If the concept is version sensitive then the DNS name should be followed by a space and then the versioning information 16 2 2 TaxonConcept AccordingTo AuthorTeam Year A four digit representation of the year in which the concept was published If this concept appears in a paper publication then it will be the year of publication If this concept is being published as part of an on line data set then a decision will have to be taken as to when the concept was created If the data is highly dynamic then it may just be the current year and version information will be present in the lt AuthorTeam gt element see above 27 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User G
28. e in lt RuleConsidered gt and publication in lt PublishedIn gt 17 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide 14 3 6 Primary and Secondary homonyms The ICZN uses the terms Primary homonym and Secondary homonym These are concisely defined in the ICZN glossary Primary Homonym Each of two or more identical specific or subspecific names established for different nominal taxa and originally combined with the same generic name Art 57 2 For variant spellings deemed to be identical see Article 58 Secondary Homonym Each of two or more identical specific or subspecific names established for different nominal taxa and originally combined with different generic names but subsequently combined with the same generic name Art 57 3 For variant spellings deemed to be identical see Article 58 From these definitions it can be seen that primary and secondary homonyms fall within the definition of Type I homonyms described above as they are based on different types but are restricted to taxa below the rank of genus Whether two names are fall into these categories can be told from their context and so there is no special feature in TCS to identify them 14 3 7 Earlier Homonyms of Sanctioned Names The ICBN has the notion of sanctioned names for some fungal names These are dealt with separately below under Sanctioned Names 14 4 Synonyms From the point of view of TCS there are four basic types of synonym 14 4 1 Type
29. e scientific true ref 345 gt Lactuca sativa L lt Name gt lt AccordingTo gt lt AccordingToSimple gt Clapham A R Tutin T G amp amp Moore D M 1987 lt AccordingToSimple gt lt AccordingTo gt lt Relationships gt lt Relationship type has vernacular gt lt ToTaxonConcept ref 456 gt lt Relationship gt lt Relationships gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt lt TaxonConcept gt lt TaxonConcept id 456 gt lt Name scientific false language en gt Garden Lettuce lt Name gt lt TaxonConcept gt 14 8 2 Vernacular concepts These are envisaged as being a far rarer usage pattern and is only likely to be used in studies with a particular focus on vernacular name usage If an author has a specific definition of a vernacular name then a lt TaxonConcept gt should be created to hold this concept description If as part of the description the author mentions scientific names without indicating which concepts of those names are referred to then the lt TaxonConcept gt element for the vernacular should have a lt Relationship gt of type is vernacular for to a nominal lt TaxonConcept gt for the scientific name lt TaxonConcept id 123 gt lt Name scientific false language en gt Prickley Lettuce lt Name gt lt AccordingTo gt lt AccordingToSimple gt Hyam R D 1999 lt AccordingToSimple gt lt AccordingTo gt lt Relationships gt lt Relation
30. eceesseeeeeceeeteeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeees 25 15 Notes on Cateye Plantsoen iiris a n es aaie iiaa 25 15 1 Cultivar and Group names in NameObjeccts cccccscecesseeseseeceeeceseeeeeesaeeesseeeeeeeeeeneeees 25 15 1 1 Vernacular alternatives to genus names ssseseeseseseseessessresetssessrerressessressessresseres 26 15 2 Cultivars and Groups in TaxonComcCe pts oss cicccssssssonses escssasavsesenvaesvcsansasscasstwonsavacscavans sveases 26 TG SI QUALLS Gencenin E E E E E EEES 26 16 1 lt NameObject gt Signature fields c csscscesscossseeesssasnsorteasesssssousaconnsaseaneesconsesaiscesstarsensedess 27 16 1 1 NameObject nomenclaturalCode ceesccssccesscesseeeneceseeeseeceseeceneeeeeeseeeeseeeseeees 27 16 1 2 MameODiect Ram COM c1oscccssisisscvenestancavereennshinnaunserntennsnistenvennstienssanssanereesnertensvens 27 16 1 3 NameObyect Canonical Name Sip les j 5ccssnsencacsnerennsdousuarddeupenmnsdannsternnualdendodatesiwes 27 161 4 Nam Obj ect YeaT oiselet esiasio i E E E a EE 27 16 2 lt TaxonConcept gt Signature Meld cscsscejiecehotspesieatenenvier epteiarae ee 27 16 2 1 TaxonConc ept According l o Awthior Dean sossietisonisctccetiedecansnssiiestiomdeancetiasiannieiieels 27 16 2 2 TaxonConcept According 0 07 VGAK x4ssxsicssases sxovssrsiessanasdcinazssasaraasaiciodiscaamannnnaetasnniees 21 16 3 Recommended Minimum Fields for Nomenclaturors ccccccecccceeseceeeneeeeeneeeeeeeeeeeaees 28 16 3 1 NameObject Canonica
31. ed from one machine to another that claim to be TCS documents can be validated using TCS to check that they conform to the standard This is very useful for maintaining data integrity The fact that TCS is an XML Schema also greatly increases the power of tools such as XMLSpy OxygenXML and many others to manipulated TCS documents 11 What about GUIDs Globally Unique Identifiers GUIDs have been much discussed during the development of TCS The importance of them can be understood when we consider how Taxon Concepts might be referenced How can we tell if data from two or more sources is referring to the same concept There are three types of keys that could be provided 1 A scientific name alone This only resolves to a nominal concept We can not know which delimitation of the taxon the user is referring to We can only know that they are referring to a 6 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide circumscription that has used this name Even the resolution of one scientific name to another can be complex Users do not need to supply ranks authors or publications in any standard form and so software algorithms are needed to try and match names These will make errors Scientific names are partial user keys to concepts 2 A scientific name plus an AccordingTo publication This is much more useful for reasoning as we now know which taxon circumscription has been used but it suffers from the same problems as 1 above Firstly the
32. elationship to the FNA 1997 concept The latter solution 2 should be used if the author does not think of the relationship as an integral part of his or her new concept definition Perhaps other data diagnosis included concepts etc are sufficient to specify the present meaning Or the relationship to earlier concepts is not so clear as to nail down the new definition exactly how the author wants it to be Example Equisetum hyemale L ssp affine Engelmann Calder amp R L Taylor sec Weakley 2005 includes E hyemale var affine Engelmann A A Eaton sec Radford Ahles amp Bell 1968 as asserted by Weakley 2005 Here the latter author does not wish to define his new concept via its inclusive 11 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide relationship to the 1968 concept Rather Weakley intends to provide readers with a guide to understanding the taxonomic legacy The precise definition of his new concept lies in the diagnosis and explanatory comments No matter what option an author chooses at the time of authoring a concept the possibility of authoring another now by default third party relationship at a later time remains Such a reassessment would coexist with the earlier relationship As a general principle it is best to avoid asserting multiple relationships between nominal concepts This provides little more information than linking a series of names In cases where this is occurring it may be worth considerin
33. er concept for the synonymous name according to the cited authorities Some workers use pro parte in a stricter sense to only refer to taxa where type specimen is now thought to be a mixed gathering of more than one taxon This is by far the less common usage of the term It can be expressed in TCS by the associated lectotypification event that is required to split the type ICBN Art 9 9 14 5 Typification Typification is a nomenclatural process and is dealt with entirely within the lt NameObject gt Although it is common to talk in terms of the type of a species or the type of a genus this is not entirely accurate as the circumscription of a taxon beyond its type specimen has no effect on its 19 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide typification unless of course it should change to include other types in which case the taxon may have a different name but the name would never have a different type There is a lt Typification gt element in the NameObject element to express matters concerning the typification of a the name The lt Typification gt element can contain either a lt TypeName gt element or aseries of lt TypeVoucher gt elements This is to allow for the different rules governing names at and below species from those above species level 14 5 1 Names at and below species level Names at species level and below are typified by vouchers specimens Here the term specimen is used loosely as illustrations can also se
34. err S EE EE E EEA duu E ENE E E EA E ER 19 14 5 1 Names at and below species LoVe ii ciccsasacastanticasssiaden sain sasncsisdinarbeendausaneniansionods 20 14 52 Nam s abov speci s LEVEL asics sxssccuswezvocesnste rnis iiaa enn EA E EEKE EEn 20 14 5 3 UCU LY PS MICALIOM ys cagiva veenwansncevaien ceassoeennteevwen ts eneseeoncgnse teansenepenesecousteanbecseetcartermnen 20 14 6 Misappled PN AIS og casio oc awesveaseuncvne seewsnneus itseni rossini leentnne korsas ti keot RES ESES SRTA EE EEEREN 20 14 7 Misspelled IN SIMER sic vicnseancarsntevapetacviesunck avin ve vase vadedeus raa sse rtasun Kase ESS r ARESA PARE SAREEN EEE RE 21 14 8 Vernacular NAIA 6 von cece vecersoumacianavannxtlovaniiaebrunnecnnpeverincmcaldvaaneliesansqoveinansaceundens a riea 21 14 8 1 Vernacular names mentioned in concept definitions cee eeseeeseeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeeees 21 14 8 2 Vernacular CCS IS x caissa acest eee csc tane ssa acteurs excesses epee teeeey 22 14 9 Women Novum Replacement Names ic siseaciessceinccouiieianedeaciannieaeceonvieenitee aeovaniaanuteasaaieehs 22 14 10 Hybrids meneen E an A neem saan 23 1411 AUY S eseese a R EE AE 23 14 12 Anamorphs and Teleomorphs ccccecsccesscesseceseeesceceeeeseeceseesseeceseeeseeceseesseesseeeeeaeeees 24 14 13 Sanctioned IN AIG vx acca tcenscscquirnavzsnesiec rar osioane eaesiaisendvonns Ganaiedouvadanenatann cap emaoncantaauaca monsseaeenees 24 14 13 1 lt CanonicalAuthorship gt in Sanctioned names ccce
35. f a publication homonym and a real homonym from botany is 1 Pedicularis inconspicua P C Tsoong Acta Phytotax Sin 3 292 amp 323 Jan 1955 2 Pedicularis inconspicua Vved Fl URSS 22 811 18 Jun 1955 3 Pedicularis inconspicua P C Tsoong Bull Brit Mus Nat Hist 2 17 Nov 1955 Names 1 and 3 relate to the same taxon from Bhutan and represent double publication of the same name in Chinese and Western journals This is one of many such names published in the same two papers by Tsoong all the names in Acta Phytotax Sin have priority over their publication in the British Museum journal Between the two papers published by Tsoong the Russian botanist Vvedensky published a real homonym P inconspicua Vved for a totally different species from Uzbekistan Robert Mill 2005 pers comm To express publication homonyms in TCS create two lt NameObjects gt and link the later one to the earlier one with a lt LaterHomonymOf gt link lt NameObject id 123 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Pedicularis inconspicua P C Tsoong lt Simple gt lt PublishedIn gt Acta Phytotax Sin 3 292 amp amp 323 Jan 1955 lt PublishedIn gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 124 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Pedicularis inconspicua Vved lt Simple gt lt PublishedIn gt Fl URSS 22 811 18 Jun 1955 lt PublishedIin gt lt LaterHomonymOf gt lt RelatedName ref 123 gt lt LaterHomonymOf gt
36. f two homonyms the later established or in the case of simultaneous establishment the one not given precedence under Article 24 Senior Homonym Of two homonyms the first established or in the case of simultaneous establishment the one given precedence under Article 24 A decision has been taken to avoid the use of these terms in favour of earlier and later homonyms This is for two reasons 1 If the senior homonym is suppressed then some workers refer to the name published before as the junior homonym and the one published after as the senior homonym This is incorrect but does occur and does cause confusion 2 It is clearer within the context of TCS to consistently use the terms Later Homonym and Earlier Homonym where earlier is always chronologically before and later is always chronologically after When acts of conservation or suppression have occurred then the terms Conserved Later Homonym and Rejected Earlier Homonym should be used These also reflect the relationships between the lt NameObjects gt in the TCS more clearly The disadvantage of taking this approach is that it does not take account of the First Reviser rule ICZN Art 24 2 In cases of simultaneous publication then the first author to used the name acts as the First Reviser and resolves the dispute These cases should be marked up in TCS using the lt ConservedAgainst gt link in lt NameObject gt and entering the appropriate rul
37. g validly published They are usually both based on the same type if a type was specified in the original publication 14 3 3 Type Ill Publication homonyms Publication homonyms arise when an error has occurred in the order in which publications appear or there is confusion over publications in different languages The situation occurs in zoology in past when an author has written a paper 1 describing a new species The same author then writes a second paper 2 and mentions the species The author assumes that paper 1 will be published before paper 2 but in fact paper 2 is comes out before paper 1 Most workers catalogue the new taxa and name from paper 2 even though in that paper the taxon and name are not marked as new and simply ignore paper 1 In most cases there are no real taxonomic consequences as the name in 1 is merely a later homonym of the name in 2 which is an objective homotypic synonym because the types are the same However there may be cases where the type series are different That is if the second reference does not include a reference to the first but it appear first then the type series is determined by the material mentioned in the wrong paper The ICZN was changed in the 4th edition to prevent this To be available after 15 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide 1999 taxonomic names must be clearly marked as new and must include type designations Christian Thompson pers com 2005 An example o
38. g whether a the data source should actually be publishing their own concepts perhaps versioned by date Data consumers can then make use of these concepts 13 4 Verbatim representation of original publications TCS does not attempt the verbatim representation of the contents of taxonomic sources This role is fulfilled by other standards such as TaXMLit TCS represents the taxa and names in those taxonomic sources in a way that can be handled intelligently by different software applications 14 Specific usage examples 14 1 Basionyms and New Combinations ICZN vs ICBN One of the most notable differences between ICBN and ICZN is the way names are cited when a species is placed in a different genus from the one it was originally published in a comb nov Botanists have a convention of always citing the authors of the original combination in brackets followed by the names of the authors of the combination Zoologists don t follow this convention they simply place the author of the original combination in brackets for the new combination and don t cite the authors who were first to make the new combination This difference is cosmetic Indeed ICZN Recommendation 51G is that new combinations in zoology should be quoted in a similar way to the way they are quoted in botany Basionym is a well established term in the ICBN where it is defined as name bringing or epithet bringing synonym ICBN Art 33 3 It is the orginal combination of
39. guage independent meaning of the vernacular term It can not be guaranteed that the consumer of the document will understand the vernacular name to be synonymous with the genus denomination group name The consumer has no way of telling that the vernacular is not a genus name and so is likely to render the name as a Latin genus name A better way to handle vernacular cultivar names is as regular vernacular names In the example above a TaxonConcept should be created with the lt Name gt element containing Apple James Grieve and an appropriate language attribute but no ref to a NameObject The relationships of this TaxonConcept to other concepts can then be expressed in the normal way 15 2 Cultivars and Groups in TaxonConcepts Cultivars and Groups are like any other taxa in that they can be described and reasoned about in different ways and therefore can be handled using TaxonConcepts although each cultivar should have a standard description Denomination classes can also be described using TaxonConcepts and there is a rank in the TaxonomicRankEnumeration to allow for this 16 Signatures Until there is a globally accepted system of GUIDs for taxon concepts it will be necessary for systems to attempt to resolve concept identities on the basis of a combination of names and lt AccordingTo gt data Even after GUIDs are available it may be necessary to de duplicate or synonymise objects on the basis of their contents For this purpose TCS
40. he taxon and using the oldest first published name associated with these specimens Only if no type specimens occur within the delimitation is a new name created and a type nominated from within the new taxon This is a gross simplification of what are complex rule sets but is enough to illustrate the points below When a non taxonomist uses a name they use it to refer to a taxon The problem is that there may have been more than one taxon defined that uses that name because the type specimen of the name may have fallen into several different circumscriptions There may be several different Taxon Concepts or taxon delimitations associated with that name To use a name precisely a worker should use a fully qualified scientific name plus an indication of which concept of that name they are using Within the schema this is done using the AccordingTo element Traditionally the Latin sensu or sec for secundum according to have been used Data that is marked up in this way can be compared in a far richer way than data that isn t Unfortunately most data is not available with lt AccordingTo gt statements Typically workers just refer to the names without indicating which particular concept they are using In the Taxon Concept Schema these are referred to as Nominal Concepts They are uses of a name to indicate a circumscribed taxon without indicating which particular circumscription Clearly if there is only one possible circumscription as w
41. ic name has not been given It is represented by a nominal concept Looking at the lt NameObject gt for D gratianopolitanus id 124 it has a link to the lt NameObject gt for Dianthus id 123 This is present only to indicate the construction of the name and no taxonomic conclusions should be drawn from this link Looking at the lt NameObject gt for D caesius it can be seen that this name also has a link to the lt NameObject gt for the genus but its associated lt TaxonConcept gt is of type nominal and has no upward placement in a higher genus We are not recognising this as a taxon concept that is part of the classification we are presenting It is merely a synonym but its lt NameObject gt is still linked to the genus lt NameObject gt because that is an attribute of its name lt NameObjects gt lt NameObject id 123 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Dianthus lt Simple gt lt Rank code gen gt genus lt Rank gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 124 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Dianthus gratianopolitanus Vill lt Simple gt lt Rank code sp gt species lt Rank gt lt CanonicalName gt lt Simple gt Dianthus gratianopolitanus lt Simple gt lt Genus ref 123 gt Dianthus lt Genus gt lt SpecificEpithet gt gratianopolitanus lt SpecificEpithet gt lt CanonicalName gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 125 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Dianthus c
42. ith a recently published species then this is not as much of a problem as for a taxon that is part of a heavily revised group When there were fewer names in use and fewer standard texts nominal taxon concepts were satisfactory With increasing amounts of data and increasing levels of interconnectivity properly defined concepts are needed To summarise A Taxon Concept is a name plus a description of a taxon To refer to a Taxon Concept one must use a name plus an AccordingTo which gives the location of the circumscription 8 Scientific Names From the above discussion it can be seen that scientific names are separate from taxon concepts One name may be used by several concepts Names are governed by rules that are separate from concepts such as whether they have been lectotypified their basionym relationships etc The TCS therefore treats names as separate lt NameObject gt elements that are referenced by lt TaxonConcept gt elements lt TaxonConcept gt elements do not need to use lt NameObject gt elements They have an element that can contain an arbitrary name string that can be a scientific name or a vernacular lt NameObject gt elements are only used to expand on this name string and provide details of the scientific name that are relevant for the nomenclatural codes 9 What the Taxon Concept Schema is NOT for The TCS schema was conceived to allow the representation of taxonomic concepts as defined in published taxonomic
43. lAuthorship Simple c cccccccesceeseceeeeceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeees 28 16 3 2 Name Cb jee Pula stn dit ys scsscgcnnesnsdesesuicnannenesissidsayiened onesnsnnsenasowstecostevenbensadeinacioneniene 28 16 3 3 NameObject Typifications Simple scsisscsisessacsenseteisseedcannsarondessnedsnesennesnsssnedeonnenvanesnsebane 28 1 Credits This document is part of an general effort by a international community of individuals to improve the way taxonomic information is exchanged between organisations It is the result of the work of the many people who have responded to direct requests for help or contributed to email lists wiki sites and verbal discussions It is not possible to produce a comprehensive list of all those involved and a partial list would not do justice to those who were omitted The names of a few contributors appear in the text where their examples have been used more or less verbatim Errors and inaccuracies are of course attributable to the editor The compilation of the guide has been made possible by the financial support of The Global Biodiversity Information Facility www gbif org who fully funding the work of the editor and partially funded the development of TCS by the Napier University team under Professor Jessie Kennedy who made time available to help with the guide 2 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide e The Science Environment for Ecological Knowledge initiative seek ecoinformatics org who partiall
44. le author might publish two identical names base on different types These are termed real because using the name without the author string can lead to real confusion From the name alone it is not possible to tell which type is being referred to and so which set of taxon concepts Pedicularis inconspicua is an example of a real homonym see below under publication homonyms Real homonyms should be marked up in TCS as two separate lt NameObjects gt The later homonym should have a lt LaterHomonymOf gt reference to the earlier one If the later homonym is conserved under ICBN Art 14 or suppressed under ICZN Art 81 then it should have a lt ConservedAgainst gt reference to the earlier name but not a lt LaterHomonymOf gt link lt TaxonConcept gt elements should then be constructed that link to the name actually used in the concept Real homonyms are characterised by having different types and usually different authors 14 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide 14 3 2 Type Il Correction Homonyms Sometimes an author makes an error when publishing a name so the name is not validly published The name may still slip into common usage though Later the same author or another may publish the name correctly In botany this is usually shown by using ex in the author string although this isn t required An example from the ICBN Art 15 Seemann 1865 published Gossypium tomentosum Nutt mss followed by a validating description
45. lt NameObject gt elements appear to have more than one link joining them If for example a name is conserved against its earlier homonym then it could have a lt LaterHomonymOf gt link and a lt ConservedAgainst gt link to the earlier name but it is highly recommended that two lt NameObject gt elements should only ever have one link joining them In the case of a conserved name the lt ConservedAgainst gt link is enough Other relationships are implied There are several combinations of links between lt NameObject gt elements that would be contradictory if they occurred together for example lt Basionym gt and lt LaterHomonymOf gt There is no way in XML schema to prevent these links occurring together and there are no combinations of links between two lt NameObjects gt that say more than is said with a single link This also reduces the cost of implementing applications that map between internal data structures and TCS documents Links between lt NameObject gt elements always point backwards in time It may be useful within an application data base to have links pointing forward in time or even both ways but it would only add complexity to a transport schema like TCS to incorporate this redundancy and add to the cost of implementing applications that make use of TCS documents 13 3 When to use lt RelationshipAssertion gt and lt TaxonConcept gt lt Relationships gt TCS allows taxonomic experts to express relationships between concep
46. mes The names of fungi presented in certain publications have been sanctioned by ICBN Art 13 1 d This means that these names are treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and competing synonyms ICBN Art 15 The earlier names are not illegitimate as would be the case if these works had been set as the starting date for fungal nomenclature but are available for use in different combinations In TCS sanctioned names should be indicated using the lt Sanctioned gt element This element can either be left empty or populated with lt PublishedIn gt and lt MicroReference gt elements giving the location of the sanctioning event A sanctioned name may be conserved against more than one other names and so may contain more than one lt ConserveredAgainst gt elements with references to the other names lt NameObject id 123 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Agaricus personatus Bolton Fr lt Simple gt lt PublishedIn gt Hist fung Halifax 2 58 1788 lt Publishedin gt lt ConservedAgainst gt lt RelatedName ref 124 gt lt ConservedAgainst gt lt ConservedAgainst gt lt RelatedName ref 125 gt lt ConservedAgainst gt lt ConservedAgainst gt lt RelatedName ref 126 gt lt ConservedAgainst gt lt Sanctioned gt lt PublishedIn gt Syst mycol 1 126 1821 lt PublishedIn gt lt Sanctioned gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 124 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Agaricus peronat
47. nNovumFor gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 124 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Myrcia laevis O Berg 1862 lt Simple gt lt Typification gt lt TypeVoucher typeOfType holo gt lt VoucherReference gt Spruce 3502 lt VoucherReference gt lt TypeVoucher gt lt Typification gt lt LaterHomonymOf gt lt RelatedName ref 125 gt lt LaterHomonymOf gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 125 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Myrcia laevis G Don 1832 lt Simple gt lt Typification gt lt TypeVoucher typeOfType holo gt lt VoucherReference gt Some other type lt VoucherReference gt lt TypeVoucher gt lt Typification gt lt NameObject gt 14 10 Hybrids In ICBN it is possible for an author to publish a name as a hybrid and another author to come along and revise it as not being a hybrid or as having different parents None of this affects nomenclature One simply adds an X multiplication symbol if one believes the taxon concept is of hybrid origin the name remains unchanged Bearing this in mind the way hybrids are handled in TCS is that the lt NameObject gt has no notion of hybridisation This is because a single lt NameObject gt could be used by two different concepts one of which is a hybrid and the other isn t lt TaxonConcept gt elements do care about hybrids They signify this by having is hybrid child of relationships with other TCs There is also
48. nder for an epithet This can happen for a number of reasons The original author of a name can spell it incorrectly and the name can then be corrected under the code e g see ICBN Article 60 for examples authors of revision concepts can make mistakes in interpreting the code or typographically errors can be made In TCS if a lt NameObject gt is known to represent the corrected spelling of value in another lt NameObject gt then a lt SpellingCorrectionOf gt link can be created from the correct spelling A correctly spelled lt NameObject gt can link to multiple incorrectly spelled lt NameObjects gt lt NameObject id 225 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Persicaria segetum Kunth Small 1903 lt Simple gt lt SpellingCorrectionOoOf gt lt RuleConsidered gt 23 5 lt RuleConsidered gt lt Note gt Correction of epithet gender lt Note gt lt RelatedName ref 226 gt Persicaria segeta Kunth Small 1903 lt RelatedName gt lt SpellingCorrectionOf gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 226 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Persicaria segeta Kunth Small 1903 lt Simple gt lt NameObject gt The lt RuleConsidered gt and lt Note gt elements are not required but included here for illustrative purposes Note that name spelling here refers only to the spelling of the uninomial binomial or trinomial name not to the author name string or any other part of the lt NameObject gt 1
49. ning only the asexual part of the life cycle of a fungus Represented in TCS by a lt TaxonConcept gt Teleomorph Taxon A taxon containing the sexual part of the life cycle of a fungus Represented in TCS by a lt TaxonConcept gt Holomorphic Taxon A taxon containing both sexual and asexual forms of a fungus Represented in TCS by a lt TaxonConcept gt Anamorphic Name A name based on an asexual fungal type These names can only be used for anamorphic taxa because they are always of lower precedence than teleomorphic names when they occur in the same holomorphic taxon Art 59 4 Represented by a lt NameObject gt in TCS There is an attributed isAnamorphic in the lt NameObject gt that should be set to true to indicate that the type of the name is asexual Teleomorphic Name A name based on a sexual fungal type These names can be used for both teleomorphic taxa and holomorphic taxa Represented by a lt NameObject gt in TCS The isAnamorphic flag could be set to false to indicate that this is a based on fertile type material Relationship types are available for both lt TaxonConcept gt and lt RelationshipAssertion gt to allow concepts to be related in terms of whether they are anomorphic teleomorphic forms or not The form attribute of lt TaxonConcept gt can be set to anamorphic to indicate a taxon is anamorphic when it isn t known to be in an is anamorph of relationship with another taxon 14 13 Sanctioned Na
50. not ascribed to Nuttall the name may be cited as G tomentosum Nutt ex Seem or G tomentosum Seem Correction homonyms should be marked up in TCS as two separate names The validating name should have a lt BasedOn gt link to the incorrectly published name The validating name should not have a lt LaterHomonymOf gt link to the incorrectly published name Published taxon concepts should then be linked to the version of the name that they actually use It is not necessary to produce a lt NameObject gt for the incorrectly published name unless it is used by a lt TaxonConcept gt element lt NameObject id 123 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Gossypium tomentosum Nutt ex Seem lt Simple gt lt CanonicalAuthorship gt lt Simple gt Nutt ex Seem lt Simple gt lt Authorship gt lt Simple gt Nutt ex Seem lt Simple gt lt Authors gt lt Name gt Nuttall lt Name gt lt Name gt ex lt Name gt lt Name gt Seem lt Name gt lt Authors gt lt Authorship gt lt CanonicalAuthorship gt lt BasedOn gt lt RelatedName ref 124 gt lt BasedOn gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 124 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Gossypium tomentosum Nutt lt Simple gt lt NameObject gt Note that as with the authorship of sanctioned names see below the ex in the author strings is treated as if it were an author Correction homonyms are characterised by one of the names not bein
51. o top level elements and specify specific valid relationships that can be held between names while still trying to ensure that names are not used where concepts are meant This schema will be presented at TDWG St Petersburg 2005 for voting as a TDWG standard by the members 6 Rational for a Taxon Concept Schema The availability exchange and interpretation of taxonomic information such as species check lists distribution and identification data is of critical importance to taxonomists ecologists and other biologists and legislators amongst others This information is provided by a number of global and local taxonomic database services These databases hold records often based on valid scientific names for species according to their own models of what constitutes a taxonomic entity or concept i e a species or higher level taxon Databases typically model a single view of taxonomy whilst making some attempt to relate their concepts to synonymous names or concepts The need for a common mechanism for the providers of taxonomic information to exchange information with other providers and users of varying expertise in taxonomy was recognized at TDWG Lisbon 2003 Such a mechanism must adequately represent the data as modelled by the owners of the data whilst facilitating integration with data provided according to different models of taxonomy The development of an abstract model for a taxonomic concept which can capture the various models
52. r lt NameObject gt elements lt NameObject gt is a data structure for holding nomenclatural data Each lt NameObject gt has a unique id attribute lt NameObject gt elements have references to lt Publication gt lt Voucher gt and other lt NameObject gt elements but not lt TaxonConcept gt elements 12 7 TaxonConcepts A container for lt TaxonConcept gt elements These elements contain the description of taxon concepts only These descriptions may include lists of specimens links to other concepts and character data Each lt TaxonConcept gt has a unique id attribute and may have a reference to a single lt NameObject gt element and multiple lt Voucher gt lt Publication gt and lt TaxonConcept gt elements 12 8 RelationshipAssertions A container for lt RelationshipAssertion gt elements These elements are used to express relationships between concepts without actually presenting new concepts If for example a data provider wanted to arrange an arbitrary set of published concepts according to a taxonomic hierarchy for a regional check list but didn t want to publish a new classification then they would use relationship assertions Each lt RelationshipAssertion gt has a unique id attribute and can point to multiple lt TaxonConcepts gt 13 How to use the TCS This section contains some general guidelines on how to approach encoding data in TCS The next section contains more detailed examples 13 1 When to use lt
53. represented and understood by the various data providers is clearly required The Taxon Concept Schema was developed to meet this need The model is presented as an XML schema document that is proposed as a standard to allow exchange of data between different data models It aims to capture data as understood by the data owners without distortion and facilitate the query of different data resources according to the common schema model 7 What are Taxon Concepts and what are they for A taxon is a unit of biodiversity The species Narcissus pseudonarcissus L daffodil is a taxon just as the genus Ratus and the kingdom Animalia are taxa The scientific names that are used to refer to taxa are controlled by a series of legalistic codes that govern their use These codes state that names must be published in a specific way and that each name should have a voucher or type specimen A type specimen is usually an individual or small group of individuals that anchor a name in the literature to the real world of biodiversity As taxonomists work to improve the classification of organisms they produce definitions or circumscriptions for taxa They do this by writing descriptions or keys or providing lists of 4 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide specimens or other data Once they have delimited a taxon a decision is taken as to what it should be called This is done by considering all the type specimens which fall within the circumscription of t
54. rve as vouchers Strictly only a single type specimen is of importance the holotype but it is customary to list other specimens such as isotypes paratypes and so the schema allows for this See also Lectotypification below 14 5 2 Names above species level Names above the species level are typified by other names Although nomenclatural codes refer to names being typified by taxa none of the rules are affected by the circumscription of the taxa beyond the type so taxa in this context means name The lt TypeName gt element holds a reference to another lt NameObject gt for this purpose 14 5 3 Lectotypification Elements are provided within the lt Typification gt element to indicate if the typification is the result of a later publication 14 6 Misapplied Names Misapplied names occur when there is an accepted taxon which has a valid name but this name has been consistently and erroneously used for some other taxon or part of another taxon There are three or more concepts involved in such situations 1 The accepted taxon that the name applies to 2 The rejected concept to which the name is erroneously applied by some other group of workers 3 The accepted concept or concepts to which specimens and observations in concept 2 above should belong The schema does not provide a specific mechanism for flagging misapplied names because in terms of TaxonConcepts they are not special cases Concept 2 above is merely a concept that i
55. s not accepted Here is an example 1 Acarospora discreta Ach Arnold Is the name of an accepted taxon of lichen according to Index Fungorum 2 The concept of Acarospora discreta Ach Arnold as used by British authors sensu auct brit is rejected by Index Fungorum 3 Acarospora veronensis A Massal Is the name of an accepted taxon of lichen to which specimens in the concept in 2 above should be placed i e A veronensis has a contains relationship to A discreta sensu auct brit This is the most simple example of the misapplication of a name A more complex example is given by Acrospora admissa Nyl Kullh Which is the name of an accepted taxon but which has been used sensu auct brit for specimens that should be placed in three other taxon concepts A 20 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide veronensis A Massal A badiofusca Nyl Th Fr and A impressula Th Fr The pro parte relationships between Acrospora admissa Nyl Kullh sensu auct brit and the three accepted taxon concepts can be expressed in terms of overlaps relationships within the schema In summary a misapplied name is simply a rejected taxon concept that bears the same name as an accepted concept but can be differentiated by the contents of the lt AccordingTo gt element 14 7 Misspelled Names Sometimes names are misspelled By misspelling here we mean orthographic and typographic variants of all forms including having the wrong ge
56. scientific name needs to be resolved and then the AccordingTo authors and publication need to be resolved Neither of these is trivial and may be difficult to automate Names plus AccordingTos are composite user keys 3 A globally unique identifier GUID This makes the problem technically simple if there is a single authority who issues codes It becomes more complex if there are multiple issuing authorities as the codes then need to be synonymised Of course using GUIDs to mark up data is not user friendly and does not provide a human readable record of the concept Users may prefer to use or be provided with composite user keys for concepts even alongside GUIDs where these are available Despite their importance to the usefulness of TCS and the future of taxonomic data exchange the whole subject is actually orthogonal to the structure of TCS itself At any point in the schema where an object is referenced a GUID could be used or an ID that is local to the document or some other kind of ID Further discussion of GUIDs in this context is therefore left to other works The resolution of partial and composite user keys to taxon concepts is within the scope of the TCS however and is discussed in the section on Signatures later in the guide 11 1 Stability of externally referenced objects Linked to the issue of GUIDs is the notion of object stability If an organisation issues an ID for an object whether part of a globally unique system
57. ship type is vernacular for gt lt ToTaxonConcept ref 124 gt lt Relationship gt lt Relationships gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt lt TaxonConcept gt lt TaxonConcept id 124 gt lt Name scientific true ref 987 gt Lactuca serriola L lt Name gt lt TaxonConcept gt 14 9 Nomen Novum Replacement Names Sometimes authors wish to recognise taxa whose names are homonyms In such cases both the ICBN Art 7 3 and the ICZN allow for nomen novum or replacement name to be created The ICZN glossary defines nomen novum as A name established expressly to replace an already established name A nominal taxon denoted by a new replacement name nomen novum has the same name bearing type as the nominal taxon denoted by the replaced name Arts 67 8 72 7 In TCS a nomen novum lt NameObject gt should have a lt NomenNovumFor gt link to the illegitimate homonym name it replaces The illegitimate homonym should have a lt LaterHomonymOf gt link to the legitimate homonym of the name 22 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide lt NameObject id 123 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Myrcia lucida McVaugh 1969 lt Simple gt lt Typification gt lt TypeVoucher typeOfType holo gt lt VoucherReference gt Spruce 3502 lt VoucherReference gt lt TypeVoucher gt lt Typification gt lt NomenNovumFor gt lt RelatedName ref 124 gt lt Nome
58. ts in two distinct places 1 as an integral part of the lt TaxonConcept gt structure and 2 separate from TaxonConcepts under lt RelationshipAssertions gt Sometimes the latter are called Third Party Relationships If an expert asserts relationships between two concepts that were both authored at an earlier time then by default these assessments are allocated to place 2 i e outside the lt TaxonConcepts gt section Example Brachycerinae sec Kuschel 1995 includes Brachycerinae sec Marvaldi amp Morrone 2000 asserted according to Franz 2005 the external third party The TCS allows more choices if an expert simultaneously authors concepts AND asserts concept relationships In that case he or she has the option of placing the relationships inside the newly authored lt TaxonConcepts gt OR outside in the lt RelationshipAssertions gt The former solution 1 should be used if the author wishes to make the relationship to another concept an integral part of the new concept definiton This includes all relationship types not just parent child relationships Earlier external concepts may be used as well to nail down the meaning of a newly published concept Example Ranunculus abortivus L sec Kartesz 2004 is congruent to Ranunculus abortivus L sec FNA 1997 where Kartesz 2004 places this relationship into the lt TaxonConcept gt definition to indicate that the newly published 2004 concept is defined by its r
59. uide 16 3 Recommended Minimum Fields for Nomenclatural Data Sources If you are publishing data that you intend to be nomenclaturally precise then you should include following fields in addition to the signature fields 16 3 1 NameObject CanonicalAuthorship Simple This should contain the full authorship of the name If abbreviations are used then an attempt should be made to follow a recognised standard such as Brummitt and Powell 1992 Authors of Plant Names 16 3 2 NameObject PublishedIin The text of this element should contain a citation to the place of publication whether or not the ref attribute points to a full breakdown of the publication This is because not all applications will be able to follow the reference or necessarily understand the schema the reference is presented in 16 3 3 NameObject Typification Simple This should contain a summary of the typification information if it is available 28 of 28
60. us Valenti lt Simple gt 24 of 28 Taxon Concept Schema User Guide lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 125 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Agaricus peronatus Lasch lt Simple gt lt NameObject gt lt NameObject id 126 nomenclaturalCode Botanical gt lt Simple gt Agaricus peronatus With lt Simple gt lt NameObject gt 14 13 1 lt CanonicalAuthorship gt in Sanctioned names The authority strings of sanctioned names contain the authors of the name followed by a colon and the sanctioning authority This should be represented in lt CanonicalAuthorship gt elements with the colon as if it were an author name This is the same method as used with ex in botanical names 15 Notes on Cultivated Plants The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants ICNCP can be viewed as an extension of the ICBN It principally introduces the ranks of cultivar and cultivar Group and the concept of a denomination classes as well as mechanisms for handling graft chimeras A cultivar is a taxon consisting of plants of cultivated origin or a selection from a wild taxon brought into cultivation Cultivar Groups are collections of cultivars Graft chimeras are combinations of plants in which the phenotypes have become mixed without full genetic hybridisation having occurred Most of the rules concerning cultivar names also applies to cultivar Groups and chimeras All Cultivars and Groups m
61. ust be registered with the appropriate International Cultivar Registration Authoritity ICRA These authorities are appointed through the Commission for Nomenclature and Cultivar Registration of the International Society for Horticultural Science ISHS http www ishs org icra 15 1 Cultivar and Group names in NameObjects The name of a Cultivar or Group consists of the name of the genus or lower taxonomic unit to which it is assigned together with a cultivar or Group epithet ICNCP Art 7 1 The minimum needed to name a cultivar unambiguously is the genus name plus the cultivar epithet so long as the denomination class for the taxa concerned does not cause confusion The denomination class is the taxonomic scope a cultivar epithet must be unique within Denomination classes are typically genera For example the hybrid epithet Buff Beauty must be unique within the genus Rosa Not all denomination classes are congruent to genera however Some may consist of several genera An example would be the more common cereal genera Avena Hordeum Secale Triticale and Triticum which form a single denomination class and so force all cereal cultivar epithets to be unique Other denomination classes are at lower taxonomic level than genus Examples would be the common sunflower Helianthus annuus and Jerusalem artichoke Helianthus tuberosus which both have their own denomination classes The result of the denomination classes and naming rules are th
62. y funded the development of TCS by the Napier University team 2 Comments Corrections and Suggestions Any comments corrections or suggestions as to how this guide could be improved should be emailed to roger hyam net Messages titles should start with TCS User Guide All feedback is most welcome 3 Introduction This guide is meant to act as a readable introduction to the Taxon Concept Schema TCS It is aimed at both decision makers and implementers of systems and so the content varies from being of a general nature assuming little prior knowledge of taxonomy or XML technologies to being quite detailed concerning the technicalities of biological nomenclature and XML schemas Generally it becomes more specific as it goes on This document is not a step by step manual for mapping a data source to a TCS document Each data source is likely to be different in structure and so this is not a feasible exercise What it attempts to do is provided the information needed for an implementer to make intelligent decisions as to how their data source should be mapped to the schema so that they can publish and or receive data from other systems with as little confusion as possible 4 Conventions When XML elements are referred to in the text they are surrounded by angled brackets like this lt gt to make it clear that we are referring to an actual element that could occur in an instance document rather than a hypothetical notion e When
63. ype has synonym gt lt ToTaxonConcept ref 989 gt lt Relationship gt lt Relationship type has vernacular gt lt ToTaxonConcept ref 990 gt lt Relationship gt lt Relationships gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt lt CharacterCircumscription gt lt TaxonConcept gt lt TaxonConcept type nominal id 989 gt lt Name scientific true ref 125 gt Dianthus caesius lt Name gt lt TaxonConcept gt lt TaxonConcept type nominal id 990 gt lt Name scientific false language en gt Cheddar Pink lt Name gt lt TaxonConcept gt lt TaxonConcepts gt For completeness the vernacular name mentioned in the concept definition is also included 14 3 Homonyms Strictly speaking homonyms are two names that are spelled exactly alike The ICBN and ICZN do however have rules that say that names that are spelled so similarly that they could be confused should also be considered homonyms ICBN Art 53 3 amp ICZN Art 58 ICZN Art 52 deals with zoological homonyms For the purposes of TCS homonyms can be divided into four kinds Real Correction Publication and Combination It is hoped that the different approaches taken by different workers under the different codes can all be accommodated using this approach 14 3 1 Type I Real Homonyms These occur when two or more authors use the same name for different taxa taxon concepts and base their versions of the name on separate types Occasionally a sing

Taxon Concept Schema – User Guide

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents

Taxon Concept Schema &ndash; User Guide

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents

Taxon Concept Schema – User Guide