Conventions for Scientific Name Synonyms: 1-1 vs. "Contained Within" vs. "Overlap" Relationships

[choess]

The term of art that may help you, which I haven’t seen yet here, is “circumscription”, meaning the boundaries set by a particular author to delimit what does or does not belong to a particular taxon. This has no nomenclatural status; to a first approximation, we are not bound to the text of the original author’s description, but rather to the type associated with the taxon. However, as Keir points out, “sensu” following a scientific name is often used to help dispel ambiguity as to the circumscription being used. The terms “sensu lato” (abbrev. s.l., “in the broad sense”) and “sensu stricto” (abbrev s.s., “in the strict sense”) are often used when a particular name has been used by different authors both to include certain taxa or to exclude them. (You can also break out the superlatives “sensu latissimo” and “sensu strictissimo”, but that’s showing off.)

When you say “not really synonyms” in your first post, taxonomists would usually distinguish between “homotypic synonyms”, where multiple names are based on the same type specimen (but usually have a different rank or genus) and “heterotypic synonyms”, which have a different type from the senior name that an author considers to be of the same taxon. Homotypic synonyms can usually (I’m too tired to talk about replacement names) be identified when their authority is written in full; the parenthetical (G.S.Mill & Standl.) in the two names you cite indicates that both those names are based on Nymphaea ozarkana G.S.Mill & Standl. (In printed synonymies, homotypic synonyms are often listed with a tribar while heterotypic synonyms get an equals sign; I admit this would be a nice feature on POWO.)

All of this is usually expressed in a rather nebulous fashion because circumscriptions are in fact nebulous and do not have completely closed boundaries. More anon.

[cazort]

This use of “sensu” makes sense. And, prior to this past week, I had already assumed that someone writing “Scientific name author (date)” meant “Scientific name sensu author (date)”.

But, correct me if I’m wrong, what I’m getting from this thread, particularly from what @jdmore wrote:

@jdmore

The “long-hand” way to unambiguously say what is meant by application of a particular name is to list the names of all other included type specimens as “synonyms” under the accepted name. This is what POWO tries to do, and what all rigorous taxonomic publications generally try to do.

is that this is not how all people mean it. That POWO, in particular, and most other taxonomic authorities, write “Scientific name author” (with the date being able to be looked up in their system if needed) to mean “The type specimen described by author (on date)” and then describe the whole taxon by means of what type specimens they include. (Which I am not convienced is enough to unambiguously describe the taxon, nor do I think it is the most efficient way to do so.)

But like…when a typical source, not necessarily a taxonomic authority, say, something like USDA, BONAP, or perhaps more broadly, any number of sources, refer to a taxon by a scientific name and author…what do they even mean? BONAP clearly takes great care in thinking about names, and has deliberately chosen to change their scheme from what USDA uses, and explain how they’ve changed them. But I would imagine that most sources don’t even think about this stuff, they just refer to taxa by names used by some authority.

But…when I don’t know what a given source means by the name, it’s usefulness is limited insofar as there are any disputes or reclassifications related to the taxon being described.

[cazort]

All of these distinctions don’t seem to help me. Like…I am aware of this:

@choess

Homotypic synonyms can usually (I’m too tired to talk about replacement names) be identified when their authority is written in full;

So that information (i.e. whether it was homotypic or heterotypic) is already there. But, I frankly don’t care what type specimen a name is based on. To me, this seems like an irrelevant technicality. What I care about, and want to know, is what criteria are used to define the species, for a certain name.

If you know the criteria being used to define the species, then you could deduce which type specimens to include or exclude, in some cases fairly easily. Like, in the example of Weakley’s system (or the system proposed by the Napier university researchers), you can just look up whatever flora is referenced and you get a clear examples of the criteria being used. You get criteria for both range and descriptions, which helps to clarify, if you run into an out-of-range record, whether it’s an unreported population, or just a mis-identification.

You cannot, however, go in reverse. I.e. knowing which type specimens are included, does not clarify what the boundaries of the species are. The information just isn’t there, for reasons both I and others have given above.

It seems utterly bizarre to me that the norm in taxonomy is to use a naming scheme that “loses information” in this way, rather than one that preserves information.

Like in the end, what I need to know is, when I am reading a particular source, when I see “Scientific name author”, I need to know what it refers to. And it seems like the norms of naming have been constructed in such a way that this information is simply not available, and you have to do some woefully unscientific dance that involves deep dives into the literature, if you don’t already know it all already, to figure it out?

Again, this makes me feel like my brain is going to explode and I cannot fathom how people have considered a system like this suitable for science, for generations now.

[keirmorse]

The sensu author is the author(s) of a treatment and completely different from the author(s) of the name. I just didn’t include the author names in my previous example as that would have been the same for all of them.

Here’s another example from my research, which I haven’t published yet. Malacothamnus densiflorus var. viscidus was separated by certain measurements in all previous treatments. I examined the type specimen and specimens from the type locality of var. viscidus and clued in on other measurements that hadn’t been used before. After morphological analysis, it was clear that previous authors drew the lines between the varieties completely wrong. Assuming I don’t change the names when I publish this, the types will retain the exact same name and synonyms but about 75% of what was called var. viscidus in the past will be var. densiflorus and some of what was called var. densiflorus will now be var. viscidus. In this case, the names and synonyms will remain the same, but in other cases there could be a lot of synonyms to make things messy. Even though the names and synonyms will not change in this case, what is included in those names changes quite a bit. If you don’t reference a treatment or a database which does, there will be no way to know if you are following the way I draw the line between the varieties or the way previous people drew those lines. The name and synonyms only definitely refer to the type specimens. What else is included in a particular name is hopefully clarified in a treatment. If you want to be clear about what is included in a particular name beyond the type specimen, you need to cite a treatment. In general, most people pick one treatment or database for consistency, knowing that it isn’t totally correct, and then cite deviations from that rule if you need to. That is what iNaturalist does. POWO has a lot of issues but it is possibly the best database to unite names for all plants in the world. As it has a lot of issues, citing deviations can get around those issues to a point. And, of course, citing a database like POWO, USDA, ITIS, etc., that often don’t or don’t at all cite treatments, just leaves things ambiguous. The big issue is that the databases are generally inadequate unless you have a good regional one that follows a local treatment like in California, and there are still a lot of issues there as the taxonomy is in flux. Recent genetic advances means some of the problematic taxonomic questions can finally be sorted out but it may take a century or more for people to actually get around to all the groups that have taxonomic issues. So, we’ll all be dead before it all makes sense.

[cazort]

@keirmorse

Assuming I don’t change the names when I publish this, the types will retain the exact same name and synonyms but about 75% of what was called var. viscidus in the past will be var. densiflorus and some of what was called var. densiflorus will now be var. viscidus. In this case, the names and synonyms will remain the same, but in other cases there could be a lot of synonyms to make things messy. Even though the names and synonyms will not change in this case, what is included in those names changes quite a bit. If you don’t reference a treatment or a database which does, there will be no way to know if you are following the way I draw the line between the varieties or the way previous people drew those lines.

This is exactly the scenario I am concerned about.

@keirmorse

If you want to be clear about what is included in a particular name beyond the type specimen, you need to cite a treatment.

Yes, this makes perfect sense.

@keirmorse

And, of course, citing a database like POWO, USDA, ITIS, etc., that often don’t or don’t at all cite treatments, just leaves things ambiguous.

EXACTLY!

What I don’t get is…this seems like a huge problem, why can’t POWO, ITIS, etc. just cite treatments the way Weakley does?

Like, yes, in theory, it would take more time and effort, but the time and effort it would take seems like it would be small relative to the time and effort that already goes into maintaining these resources, and it would be tiny relative to the amount of time and effort it would save by the people using the databases.

Like, I’m sure the people compiling the data that goes into these databases have much more knowledge about which treatments their classification scheme is in harmony with, than an overwhelming majority of people looking at the database. The people behind the data are probably are aware of this, like they’re going with certain treatments when constructing their data, but they’re not presenting it to the world (and possibly not recording it at all, except perhaps in their heads?) so then someone like me comes along wanting to look something up and now I, with much less knowledge and expertise and familiarity with the literature, and sometimes, much less access (because most of this stuff is not published in open access jorunals) to the literature, is given the near-impossible task of figuring this stuff out.

It just isn’t efficient. It would be much more efficient if the people maintaining POWO would take like 5 minutes to make a note of what they are doing, because I strongly suspect this would be a tiny amount of effort relative to the amount of effort they put into each of their entries, and then present it to the world, instead of leaving it to someone like me who would have to expend hours to sort some of this stuff out.

I don’t know? Does this make sense?

This is why I keep re-iterating that I am having a really hard time why citing treatments or taxonomic contexts or whatever you want to call them, has not become the norm, the standard, in biology.

And I am starting to feel more and more strongly that I want it to be the standard.

[jdmore]

@choess

The term of art that may help you, which I haven’t seen yet here, is “circumscription”, meaning the boundaries set by a particular author to delimit what does or does not belong to a particular taxon.

Yes, exactly this. Beyond citing names of types, any author of a taxonomic “treatment” is free to include or exclude from their taxonomic concept any other (non-type) organisms or populations they see fit, whether or not they are represented by cite-able specimens (which then may or may not actually be cited in the treatment). So even if

@cazort

POWO, ITIS, etc. just cite treatments the way Weakley does

(which I agree would be great, don’t get me wrong…) those treatments will vary widely in the levels of precision they can bring to defining the boundaries of their taxa.

I think it is just something I’ve learned to live with, given that it will never be possible for every treatment to cite an exhaustive list of specimens for each taxon (much less examine them all). It comes down to the identification keys, descriptions, and (hopefully) discussion written in each treatment, and how usable and sensible other readers ultimately find them to be.

Systematics and Taxonomy are definitely not “hard” science the way some would wish (and I say this having been on a path in the “hard” sciences before diverting into botany!). While using the best available tools and methods of science, in the end they are our best approximation at bringing conceptual order and communication tools to living populations of organisms that ultimately are too complex to ever fully comprehend, and that continue to change incrementally with every new generation. One can despair, or one can stand in awe. Either way, the diversity and complexity of life is profoundly humbling.

To address some other points:

@cazort

It seems utterly bizarre to me that the norm in taxonomy is to use a naming scheme that “loses information” in this way, rather than one that preserves information.

The process in Taxonomy of publishing names and writing treatments based on the experimental results of Systematics is an information-generating process, and is the norm. Taxonomic compilations like POWO, while hugely helpful and influential in some contexts, are a small fraction of the total work product in those disciplines. And yes, such compilations almost by definition cannot directly incorporate all of the information from which they are derived. I agree that citing treatments would be a great start, but only a start.

As for the “naming scheme” itself, taxonomic names as defined labels have only ever been intended as gateways to further research, like any other literature citation. Even making them marginally more information-rich by adding “sensu Treatment Author” to each one would not change that basic function, and adding anything more would render them non-functional as convenient labels for communication.

@cazort

when I see “Scientific name author”, I need to know what it refers to

By itself, you can always assume that this refers to the publishing and/or combining author of the scientific name. Only if preceded by “sensu” or other equivalent verbiage would citation of an Author refer to a separate taxonomic treatment. (New names frequently do get published within taxonomic treatments, however.) Hopefully in such cases it would follow standard literature citation format, and not just the treatment author’s name.

[keirmorse]

@cazort

It just isn’t efficient. It would be much more efficient if the people maintaining POWO would take like 5 minutes to make a note of what they are doing, because I strongly suspect this would be a tiny amount of effort relative to the amount of effort they put into each of their entries, and then present it to the world, instead of leaving it to someone like me who would have to expend hours to sort some of this stuff out.

I totally agree. As bad as POWO is, it does give more information than many databases. I asked them about it and they said to give them another century to catch up. There is too much to do and too little people to do it. I do wonder if some of that information is in their database but isn’t available on the public end. They also regularly cite a reference that also doesn’t cite references, which may have those references hidden somewhere.