|
Difference between
version 5
and
version 4:
| Line 15 was replaced by line 15 |
| - (1) internally, rejected (shallow) concepts to accepted (deep) concepts (e.g. Hicoria sec. Stone [not shown] → Carya sec. Stone [shown]); |
| + (1) internally, rejected (shallow) concepts to accepted (deep) concepts (e.g. Hicoria sec. Stone (not shown) → Carya sec. Stone (shown)); |
| Line 28 was replaced by line 28 |
| - This is still a fairly simple but different case. Let’s assume Stone (1997) was aware of the concept approach, and wanted to be both comprehensive and conservative in his classification. [You could easily imagine Manning and Stone to instead represent two future versions of ITIS, where ITIS’ taxonomic experts were “schooled” in the concept approach.] |
| + This is still a fairly simple but different case. Let’s assume Stone (1997) was aware of the concept approach, and wanted to be both comprehensive and conservative in his classification. (You could easily imagine Manning and Stone to instead represent two future versions of ITIS, where ITIS’ taxonomic experts were “schooled” in the concept approach.) |
Back to Nico Concept Examples,
or to the Page History.
|
