nomenclature: identifying versus classifying

[Richard Pyle]

> But, because the index numbers are sequentially applied, they
> automatically represent a hierarchy (usually the sequence is a
> chronological sequence based on when each record was created) and do
> provide information about the records (i.e., the order of entry).

That's part of the reason that I opt for randomly-generated numbers for use
as primary keys of such things as Taxon Names -- to eliminate all
information content from what should be a completely arbitrary
identification label.  Human eyes need never see these numbers, but the
computer uses them quite efficiently.  Incidentally, another reason to go
with randomly-generated primary key ID numbers is that it allows for
"virtual replication"; that is, two unconnected copies of the database can
be used independently and then later merged without fear of overlap in
primary key values.  This doesn't apply much for taxon names, but a classic
example is a field researcher with a laptop recording data for collected
specimens, then later appending those specimen records to the "master"
database back at the home institution.  The risk that the same ID number
would have been selected for both the remote field copy and the home master
copy is vanishingly small (assuming a large enough pool of numbers to draw
from).

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
"The views expressed are the author's, and not necessarily those of Bishop
Museum."