Which type of Linnaean name is it? I am guessing that the more generally
applicable and utile "rank-based classification/taxonomic system" is what
you had in mind, but I suppose that it could be the names that Carl
personally gave or something else. And can it include cladistic systems
(technically, of should not, but...).

Also, which part of an organism's classification is included? Just the
binomen or any of it, or the totality of it? (Do I have to go through
every subtaxon for a dog?) When a set is sufficiently general/diverse, the
most specific taxon is clear, but how does one name a non-most-specific
taxonomy thereof and make it clear which type taxon that is (I suggest
another terbri)?

Comment #2: Re: Type and extent

Wuzzy (Fri Jun 27 10:52:36 2014)

krtisfranks wrote: > Which type of Linnaean name is it? I am guessing that the more generally > applicable and utile "rank-based classification/taxonomic system" is what > you had in mind, but I suppose that it could be the names that Carl > personally gave or something else. And can it include cladistic systems > (technically, of should not, but...). > > Also, which part of an organism's classification is included? Just the > binomen or any of it, or the totality of it? (Do I have to go through > every subtaxon for a dog?) When a set is sufficiently general/diverse, the > most specific taxon is clear, but how does one name a non-most-specific > taxonomy thereof and make it clear which type taxon that is (I suggest > another terbri)? Ugh. Well, someone edited the definition and I *think* this edit answers those questions.

Comment #3: Re: Type and extent Curtis W Franks (Fri Jun 27 19:45:07 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > Which type of Linnaean name is it? I am guessing that the more generally > > applicable and utile "rank-based classification/taxonomic system" is > what > > you had in mind, but I suppose that it could be the names that Carl > > personally gave or something else. And can it include cladistic systems > > (technically, of should not, but...). > > > > Also, which part of an organism's classification is included? Just the > > binomen or any of it, or the totality of it? (Do I have to go through > > every subtaxon for a dog?) When a set is sufficiently general/diverse, > the > > most specific taxon is clear, but how does one name a non-most-specific > > taxonomy thereof and make it clear which type taxon that is (I suggest > > another terbri)? > > > Ugh. Well, someone edited the definition and I *think* this edit answers > those questions. In a sense, it does. But if one were to name the wrong standard and if this word were narrow in some sense which included "the type" of that standard, then one would be absuing the word, although they might be understandable semantically. Lojban defaults to semantic vagueness, so that is what I would propose in this case, in order to clear up any questions about abuse. :)