Hymenoptera classification

[Jim Croft]

>O.K., well that's an issue of semantics (quite literally, "what's in a
>name?").

don't go there....  pleeaassee!

>Well, actually I would regard it as a misidentification, because I would
>treat the two alternate homynyms as different "name" instances, with
>different types, and so a confusion of one "name" with the taxon concept
>that encompases only the other name's type would be an example of a
>misidentification.  Again, I think it comes down to semantics (like so many
>other points of discussion on this list....)

too late... :(

> > Thinking of it another way - the concept could be including
> > the type but you are using the wrong concept...
> > no, this never happens in taxonomy... :)
>
>Hmmmm....not sure I follow on this....  maybe you can spell it out in terms
>of examples (either real or hypothetical)?

maybe I did not word this all that well...  you had a concept in your
head, it included the type... but it was the wrong type...  you though
you were looking the fern ally Lycopodium, but it was actually a young
conifer, Dacrydium, a not uncommon mistake...  The fern genera
Stenochlaena and Lomariopsis are superficially very similar but are
in different familes (orders?) - they are always being truly misidentified
in the true sense of the word.   I think there is a logical difference
between this situation and the confusion of taxa beind construed
in different ways...  There must be numerous examples in the fish
world...

jim


~ Jim Croft ~ jrc at anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~