| Line 9 was replaced by line 9 |
| - This is perhaps the cleanest example, and useful to introduce some terminology. What you see above are two succeeding classification systems for the walnut family Juglandaceae: one according to Manning (1978), and the other according to Stone (2001). For example, there is a Juglans sec. Manning (1978), or a Carya ovata sec. Stone (1997). Each author has his own network of vertical parent/child relationships among the internally accepted concepts. The rejected concepts (e.g. Hicoria is a rejected synonym for Carya, as both Manning and Stone mention) are not shown here, but could be pasted in as less precisely (shallowly) defined concepts, placed next to each corresponding accepted concept. |
| + This is perhaps the cleanest example, and useful to introduce some terminology. What you see above are two succeeding classification systems for the walnut family Juglandaceae: one according to Manning (1978), and the other according to Stone (1997). For example, there is a Juglans sec. Manning (1978), or a Carya ovata sec. Stone (1997). Each author has his own network of vertical parent/child relationships among the internally accepted concepts. The rejected concepts (e.g. Hicoria is a rejected synonym for Carya, as both Manning and Stone mention) are not shown here, but could be pasted in as less precisely (shallowly) defined concepts, placed next to each corresponding accepted concept. |
| Line 13 was replaced by line 13 |
| - So, to sum up, there are three possible sorts of relationships here: (1) internally, rejected (shallow) concepts to accepted (deep) concepts (e.g. Hicoria sec. Stone [not shown] → Carya sec. Stone [shown]); (2) vertical relationships among accepted concepts (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → C. ovata sec. Stone); and (3) lateral relationships among accepted concepts (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → Carya sec. Manning). I would strongly suggest that we do not worry now about vertical or lateral relationships involving concepts that an author rejects, because often their referential extensions are too ambiguous (see my paper). |
| + So, to sum up, there are three possible sorts of relationships here: |
| At line 14 added 8 lines. |
| + (1) internally, rejected (shallow) concepts to accepted (deep) concepts (e.g. Hicoria sec. Stone [not shown] → Carya sec. Stone [shown]); |
| + |
| + (2) vertical relationships among accepted concepts (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → C. ovata sec. Stone); and |
| + |
| + (3) lateral relationships among accepted concepts (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → Carya sec. Manning). |
| + |
| + I would strongly suggest that we do not worry now about vertical or lateral relationships involving concepts that an author rejects, because often their referential extensions are too ambiguous (see my paper). |
| + |
| Line 50 was replaced by line 58 |
| - What I’ve done here is also in Figs. 7-10 and in Table 4 of the manuscript. The disconnect between the lines in the hierarchy are supposed to indicate their referential extensions are entirely specified through their properties, i.e. the solid rectangles. The lines basically don’t count. Stone has been given a choice here to use only a part of Manning’s full definition of Juglandaceae, the part that talks about the shapes of walnuts, their unique leaves and floral organ arrangements, etc. Under that purely intensional definition, Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997) is subsumed under Manning’s (1978) Juglandaceae concept (and GUID 100), even though Manning never saw or mentioned Cyclocarya. Manning’s property-based definition is still useful and precise enough after Cyclocarya had been discovered - or at least that’s what Stone wants to express. |
| + What I’ve done here is also in Figs. 7-10 and in Table 4 of the manuscript. The disconnect between the lines in the hierarchy is supposed to indicate that their referential extensions are entirely specified through their properties, i.e. the solid rectangles. The lines basically don’t count. Stone has been given a choice here to use only a part of Manning’s full definition of Juglandaceae, the part that talks about the shapes of walnuts, their unique leaves and floral organ arrangements, etc. Under that purely intensional definition, Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997) is subsumed under Manning’s (1978) Juglandaceae concept (and GUID 100), even though Manning never saw or mentioned Cyclocarya. Manning’s property-based definition is still useful and precise enough after Cyclocarya had been discovered - or at least that’s what Stone wants to express. |
| Line 54 was replaced by line 62 |
| - What we’re moving towards in this contentious case is the issue of permitting succeeding authors to untie existing parent/child connections, if (and maybe only if) the parent concepts also have intensional aspects to them that would allow the taxonomist to reduce concept inflation by citing those parents as acceptable. They are acceptable only if one allows their ostensive (child-pointing) and intensional (property-inferring) aspect to be separated. The motivation for this is to minimize concept inflation, and maximize concept reuse. The more concepts are properly reused, the closer we get to creating a language that’s maximally superior to names. This is a “parsimonious” concept approach - only author concept when both the intensions and ostensions are new, otherwise cite existing ones. Note that example 4 makes a flexible “stopping rule” possible. Stop authoring parents whenever you think there are congruent intensions. |
| + What we’re moving towards in this contentious case is the issue of permitting succeeding authors to untie existing parent/child connections, if (and maybe only if) the parent concepts also have intensional aspects to them, which would allow the taxonomist to reduce concept inflation by citing those parents as acceptable. They are acceptable only if one allows their ostensive (child-pointing) and intensional (property-inferring) aspect to be separated. The motivation for this is to minimize concept inflation, and maximize concept reuse. The more concepts are properly reused, the closer we get to creating a language that’s maximally superior to names. This is a “parsimonious” concept approach - only author concepts when both the intensions and ostensions are new, otherwise cite existing ones. Note that example 4 makes a flexible “stopping rule” possible. Stop authoring parents whenever you think there are congruent intensions. |
