Taxon names and concepts: building a strong foundation for biodiversity information
Weitzman, A. L. 1 & Lyal, C. H. C.2
1The National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA, weitzman@si.edu
2The Natural History Museum, Department of Entomology, London SW7 5BD, UK, c.lyal@nhm.ac.ukWhat is needed for the taxonomic community and for GBIF is a standard for Name data. This is first a standard for the elements required to define a name and its valid publication (Bot.) or availability (Zoo.). Standards for taxonomic concepts are a separate need, which, though important, also require a standard for the name elements themselves. There are currently a number of different projects using a variety of elements for names, including: ITIS, Species 2000, ABCD (and therefore Names), Darwin Core (including various versions) SDD, Linnaean core, Taxonomer, UBio and taXMLit.
The elements needed to define a name are relatively straightforward and fall into the category that we have defined in another talk as primary or unambiguous. The elements needed to define a concept are, on the other hand, in the category of attributed or interpretative. The former includes genus, species epithet, holotype (or its equivalent, if defined), author(s), and citation (protologue, Bot.; original publication Zoo.) while the latter includes relationship to higher taxa and other taxa, specimens included (except for the holotype or its equivalent, e.g., lectotype or neotype). We will present a comparison of the elements currently in use in the above projects and suggestions for what is needed to develop a primary core name standard.