Suppose an ambiregnal taxon described in a paper (so single taxon concept) with two valid names under different Codes, e.g. ICBN and ICZN. Do we need two taxon concept entries for the taxon concept, each of which retains a NameDetailed for one of these Code? Single taxon concept may have multiple valid names under multiple Codes, so we'd better place for multiple NameDetailed under Codes. It also implies that we need multiple places for Kingdoms in case of ambiregnal taxon. -- JamesYtow 12 Aug 2004

While I agree that such a 'thing' can be considered to be one single concept, it doesn't fit our definition. We feel it is such a rare case that it should be treated as two concepts with a link between them that marks them as being two halfs of a single concept, rather than add aditional complexity to the schema which will make handling of 'ordinary' concepts unneccessarily complicated. We had such a relationship type defined at some point, but it seems to have gotten lost in the last revision. Will add again. -- RobertKukla 12/8/04

I agree with you that it is better to capture this situation as two entries in databases (or whatever) and manage their relationship separately. It means that the nane TaxonConcept? is misleading; it would be better to call it as say TaxonConceptProxy?, although I prefer to NameUsage?, PotentialTaxon?, or Assertion sensu Taxonomer depending on coverage of TaxonConcept? type. See also Name Usage -- JamesYtow 12 Aug 2004 (UTC), ammend. 13 Aug. 2004 (UTC)

I still think there is no need to change the model to accommodate unusual anomalies. If we accept that animals and plants are different concepts, an ambiregnal taxon named alternatively as both an animal and a plant must represent two views of the concept. The alternative would be to have a separate (or super) kingdom, with separate rules of nomenclature.........It seems to me that giving the taxon two names is a working compromise by taxonomists because they do not have naming rules for this animal/plant superkingdom, and this compromise should not require to be represented in the model, as long as we can express identity/equivalence between the two named cocnepts. TrevorPaterson 13 Aug

Unusualness depends on taxa and scope. It is common in protozoa. These two names under different Code do not represent two views but only Code issue. It is also common in dscription of new species in Japan to give both scientific name under a Code and in Japanes to define a standard Japanese name of the taxon. In those cases the equivalence between names are explicitly specified by the author. -- JamesYtow, 17 Aug. 2004