Changes in Taxonomy, etc.

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks for the prompt response, Chris!

> First, as an editor of a database I want to see a FLAG that tells me
> immediately that something has been changed at least  in respects to the
> "current" taxonomy in the opinion of the author(s).

O.k., in this case, I read "current taxonomy" as defined by some threshold
level of preponderance of "prevailing usage" - correct? Or, is it more
complex than this (e.g., taking into account the respective scientific
merits of each relevant usage)>

> Now most databases, especially nomenclators, will always need to
> incorporate a new species / new names, but whether they track various
> classifications or not and therefore want to track new combinations or
> revised status, etc., is something else.

Personally, I think it is very valuable for a database to track subsequent
usage of names -- not just the original creation (description) of the name.
However, this is entirely separate from the question of subjectively
"flagging" particular usages as representing some special "staus change".
To accomodate botanical names, my databases do have a boolean flag for
"IsNewCombination" -- because this (I beleive) is governed by the ICBN Code.
But in zoology, because there is no Code rule to govern such acts, the "New
Combination" emerges in a self-evident way from the database (using standard
fields of the database, such as a link for genus placement, and a date of
publication field), as the database becomes adequately populated with the
important subsequent usages.

Getting back to Martin's basic complaint with these various terms, I don't
find most of them to be defined with adequate precision (and/or with
sufficiently wide adoption) to bother trying to track these "events" in my
databases.

Aloha,
Rich