Richard L. Pyle

@dshorthouse : *Excellent* points! (as always!) And I think you really get to the heart of what I've struggled with both for `preparations` and the proposed `materialSampleType`. > And, as...

@tucotuco : > my recommendation is to charter a Task Group within the Observations & Specimens Interest Group for the specification of a MaterialSample extension, including the development of the...

@tucotuco > Try as I might, I can not get my head around a "Specimen" not being a MaterialSample. Same here, but the other part of the question is: are...

@dagendresen : > From the term name materialSampleType I initially get the association to a splitting of basisOfRecord so that PreservedSpecimen, FossilSpecimen and LivingSpecimen (?) would move to the new...

I commented on this [here](https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/342#issuecomment-830767497).

Many thanks, @tucotuco. One note of protocol for epic posts: always best to warn @timrobertson100 to go get a cup of tea up at the top. I like how you...

@tucotuco : I'm trying to reconcile this statement: > I maintain that a Taxon is a theoretical construct and an Organism is not, so that there is no way to...

> With populations you do not have this problem, even if people will have different opinions on what populations are, as they do not have the taxonomic baggage. Perhaps, but...

Now that I've had several showers, traffic jams, and ceiling-staring sessions to contemplate some of the [points](https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/339#issuecomment-833963738) raised by @tucotuco, I'd like to explore this statement a bit more: >...

> I would like to try to summarize the controversy. I maintain that an Organism and a Taxon are conceptually distinct. One is the manifestation of a theory and the...