2. Towards Concept Synonymies
Working towards a set of rules that govern the process
of translating synonymous names - as they exist in the literature -
into concept synonymies (which ought to be more useful)
???
Nico Franz SEEK/EdinburghMay 10/11, 2004

3. Overview 1. A traditional catalogue of weevils (genus & higher)
a) what are the core entities?; what is new & different?
- authoring concepts vs. contributing names
b) how much is implied about correlations?
- from name synonymies to concept synonymies
2. The “Referenzliste” of mosses (genus & lower)
- ins & outs of one approach towards expressing concept synonymies
3. Lessons learned?
- how do synonymy relations bear on the “what’s a concept?” issue

4. - 1999, 315 pp.
- over 5000 valid genera recognized
- new classification into higher-level groups (“eclectic”)
- a new standard reference for the group

5. How taxonomists tend to simplify things
- some names are “not available,”
even if they are “new,” and/or
tied to “new information”
- “unavailable names” are not en
par with synonymous names
- they could still represent
concepts to some, though

6. Name changes are mentioned upfront
- new names (called “taxa”)
- new replacement names
- replacements already available
for junior homonyms
- new synonymies
- resurrected names
- changes of status
- transfers
- type-species designations
- new replacement names for species (!)
- taxa originally described inside the superfamily
and now excluded, or outside the superfamily
and now included

7. How name synonymies are handled (I)
- all published spellings are considered (accepted name is indicated)
- “=“ means (roughly): “refers to the same type” (nomenclatural synonymy)

8. How name synonymies are handled (II)
- some synonymous names are (mainly) there because they represent
errors in spelling
- others are “truly different” names and views
- they are all represented with “=“ (obscuring any kind of deeper similarity)

9. Derelomini sec. AZ&L 99!, Celetes sec. ... ?
- no listing of properties
- but: 38 included genera (“constituents”)
- that combination of 38 constituents
had never been linked to the name
- thus: Derelomini sec. AZ&L 1999
- AZ&L 1999 are authors of a concept
- no listing of properties
- also: no included species (other than type)
- thus: Celetes … sec. Schoenherr 1836?
- the difficulties of figuring out what exactly
Celetes … means according to AZ&L 1999
apply to all other (synonymous) genus-level
concepts as well
- at the least inclusive level, all one can
assume to be included are the original
core constituents (and that’s not enough…)
- or: Celetes … sec. AZ&L 1999?
- or even: … sec. O’Brien & Wibmer 1986?
- or maybe Celetes … is just a name here,
and requires new interpretation
to acquire “concept status” (e.g. sec. NMF)
- AZ&L 1999 are contributors of a name

10. Summary so far
1. Not all names in AZ&L 1999 can be translated into concepts
without introducing ambiguity or contentious assumptions
about what these authors meant by the names.
- all lowest-level names, and all synonymous (rejected) names
2. Virtually all “=” relations among names require additional interpretation
(not provided by AZ&L 1999) to be useful as indicators of similarity &
difference among synonymous concepts.
3. AZ&L 1999 make it clear what they consider “their new
add-ons” to the taxonomic legacy in terms of names,
statuses, and transfers of taxa, but that is not sufficient
to label all that is new and different in terms of concepts.
Further analysis is necessary (inclusions/exclusions, etc.).

11. - 2000, 520 pp.
- over 1050 valid species recognized (in 3 divisions)
- 1st implementation of concept approach (synonymies)
- no new classification above genus-level,
very few taxonomic emendations overall
- a new standard reference for the group?

12. Kinds of relationships among synonymous concepts
“congruent”
“includes”
“is included in”
“overlaps”
“excludes”
“uncertain”

13. New vocabulary - (old) name synonymies - (new) concept synonymies
- also: a whole set of traditional terms (e.g. “sensu stricto” or “nomen nudum”)
to flag the availability of names in terms of the Code

14. Actual implementation (I)
reference / time
concept “circumscription”
- the “extent” of a concept (breadth of the bar) is proportional
to the number of its constituent species (“Sippen”)

15. Actual implementation (II)
- circumscriptions of genera
become fairly involving;
flexible displays (i.e. on screen)
would be useful (TaxLink?)

16. Some particularities
- The overall presentation and motivation of the “Referenzliste” is traditional, however:
- names are listed alphabetically throughout, not partially chronological (as they were
published, see AZ&L 1999);
- all incorrect spellings are “updated” to the current Code standards,
“errors” are not even mentioned (≠ AZ&L 1999) [easier recognition,
but historical unfolding of name spellings is lost!];
- there are no ranks above genus!; divisions are treated as names [no classification…],
also no concepts below genus- but above species-level.
- The ca. 10 core references range from ; the vast majority of the original concepts
was not considered [by 1927 most CE species described - thus ± equal “breadth” throughout].
- The breadth of genera is assessed only with regards to how many species they have in Europe!;
divergent views pertaining to constituent taxa outside of Europe were (usually) not considered.
- In some cases, properties were considered as well (to resolve ambiguities);
other cases need further analysis.
- Differences to other publications that recognize more low-level concepts (subspecies etc.)
were ignored if they did not conflict with the current high-level perspective.

17. Summary so far
1. The “Referenzliste” is a pioneering effort, and presents one way
to apply the concept approach to newly express synonymy relations.
2. The way in which the authors defined genus concepts suits
their purpose well enough, but to be applicable to more wide-
ranging taxonomic summaries, it needs expansion and refinement.

18. The ins & outs of properties vs. constituents
as markers of concepts – some “lessons”
T1 = 1815
“Coleoptera”
(beetles)
sec. Aut1
“elytra”
“spp. A1, B2, etc.”

19. Revision (I) - new properties, old constituents
- no explicit incongruence
T2 = 1835
T1 = 1815
Properties:
Col.T1 ≤ Col.T2
Constituents:
Col.T1 = Col.T2

20. Revision (II) - old properties, new constituents
- no explicit incongruence
T2 = 1855
T1 = 1815
Properties:
Col.T1 = Col.T2
Constituents:
Col.T1 ≤ Col.T2

21. Revision (III) - reassignment of properties to taxa
- incongruence, yet same arrangement
T2 = 1875
T1 = 1815
Properties:
Col.T1 >/< Col.T2
Constituents:
Col.T1 = Col.T2

22. Revision (IV) - reassignment of properties to taxa
- incongruence, and different arrangement
T2 = 1895
T1 = 1815
Properties:
Col.T1 = Col.T2
Constituents:
Col.T1 >/< Col.T2

23. Conclusions (I)
1. Whether two (succeeding) concepts are congruent or not,
is contingent upon their being defined by properties or constituents.
The two kinds of definitions may be identical in terms of the taxa
they denote, but need not be.
2. There is an important difference between two concepts varying
in their extensions (numbers of properties/constituents they include,
like an “expanded view”), versus representing actual disagreements
(no reconciliation is possible).
The latter situation obtains if each author (at T1 & T2) examined
the same kind of evidence and adopted a diverging view.

24. Conclusions (II)
3. We know that characterizations through properties vs. constituents
have advantages and disadvantages, in terms of “what computers
can learn,” and how humans tend to individuate concepts of taxa.
- ambiguity vs. robustness vs. preditiveness vs. intelligibility,
at higher vs. lower levels in the hierarchy
4. Currently taxonomists sort of merge the two into a dual system
that maximizes the benefits of both.
“Types” are important in the definition of individual species, yet
“synapomorphies” are preferred to refer to clades of many species.
5. I think this may call for using a deliberate dual system (parallel ways
of denotation) to flag concept synonymies as well.