Open nielsklazenga opened 3 years ago
This term and replacementNameFor
seem rather tied to the Botanical Code and I am wondering how appropriate it is to use them for other than botanical names and how much their use will be in accordance with the Code when used by people who are not familiar with the Botanical Code. If the terms are being misused anyway, it will be better from a data perspective to have a term that is more generally meaningful. It would also be good if this term could be used for all names, rather than only new combinations and avowed substitutes that basionym
and replacedSynonym
respectively can be used for. That would be more useful for botanists as well. So, basically DarwinCore originalNameUsage
but without the 'Usage' nonsense.
If this is opening Pandora's box, or people are not interested, we can postpone this to a later time.
"Replacement Name" is also a "thing" in the Zoological Code. It's basically a new name (with its own authorship/etc.) meant to replace an existing name (e.g., junior homonym), and shares the same type.
Ah, awesome. We should add that to the comment for the replacementNameFor
/replacedName
property (#37).
The definition in the Code glossary is:
"A name established expressly to replace an already established name. A nominal taxon denoted by a new replacement name (nomen novum) has the same name-bearing type as the nominal taxon denoted by the replaced name [Arts. 67.8, 72.7]. See emendation, substitute name."
Note that a "new replacement name" is also referred to as "nomen novem".
We also have "substitute name":
"Any available name, whether new or not, used to replace an older available name. See emendation, new replacement name (nomen novum), synonym."
And "emendation":
"(1) Any intentional change in the original spelling of an available name [Art. 33.2.]. (2) An available name formed by intentionally changing the original spelling of an available name."
So we have several terms in the Zoo Code that refer to names being replaced by other names.
Zoologically, It might not be a Coded thing, but from a biodiversity database or linked data perspective the hasBasionym ( or isNewCombinationOf) relationship exists and we do need to document it.
I definitely agree!
Cool, seems like I am looking for problems where there aren't any then. We'll leave it as it is.
Thanks for the stuff above @deepreef.
basionym (property)
Mapping