[CPN] Fwd: PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals

[Mike Keesey]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:48 AM, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic at gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> A phylogenetic hypothesis  cannot even be formulated until the
>  > relevant life forms are grouped into taxonomic units (whether those
>  > units are individuals, populations, species, or something else). Only
>  > then can the units be related to each other in terms of descent,
>  > creating a phylogenetic hypothesis. So the unit taxonomy is an
>  > essential part of the hypothesis.
>  >
>  > I used to argue that the only type of unit should be the individual,
>  > since it's objective, but a discussion with a lichenologist
>  > disabused me of that notion. There's no simple, objective way to
>  > mandate the composition of any type of taxonomic unit, be it species
>  > or individual. The Code avoids this problem by recognizing that it is
>  > a taxonomic matter, not a nomenclatural one.
>
> I think we have an easy way out: as least as far as specifiers are
> concerned, we can use specimens as opposed to individuals. That leaves
> the decision to the curators. :-)

Specimens and individuals aren't quite the same thing, though. An
individual is (potentially) a taxonomic unit within a hypothesis. A
specimen, when used as a specifier, *indicates* a taxonomic unit (or
union of units) within a hypothesis.

-- 
T. Michael Keesey
http://tmkeesey.net/