identificationQualifier

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Are we interpreting this too broadly?

According to DwC this term is for expressing _doubt_ about a particular 
determination, so if we keep with this strict definition, our terms sensu 
stricto, sensu lato, etc. are not appropriate.

Regardless of how broadly interpret identificationQualifier, I think we leave 
nomenclatural terms out (e.g., nomen nudum).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sweeneyp...@gmail.com on 25 Sep 2011 at 4:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

In Apiary we expect to see only cf. or aff. (+ the remainder of the scientific 
name after these indicators) in identificationQualifier.

Phrases like nomen nudum and sensu stricto would probably belong in 
taxonRemarks.

Original comment by amanda.n...@gmail.com on 28 Mar 2012 at 7:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'd concur with Amanda.  AppleCore should provide guidance the same or narrower 
than DarwinCore, not broader.  Keeping strictly to doubt about the application 
of the name to the specimen in the determination is what we should advocate for 
identificationQualifier, while s.s. and s.l. are statements about the taxon 
used in the identification, not the application of that taxon to the specimen.

Original comment by mole@morris.net on 29 Mar 2012 at 1:40