[tdwg-content] [ExternalEmail] Re: canonical name for named hybrid & infragenericnames

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

PS to the post below:

This is also explained fairly clearly (?) here:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=In_Lv8iMt24C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49

Cheers - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Sent: Friday, 10 December 2010 5:48 PM
> To: pmurray at anbg.gov.au; morris.bob at gmail.com
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [tdwg-content] canonical name for named
> hybrid & infragenericnames
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Paul Murray wrote:
> 
> > A generic name may be marked as a hybrid. It is rendered
> > 	× Foo
> 
> 
> Actually my understanding is that ×Foo is the Code-endorsed version:
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> APPENDIX I
> NAMES OF HYBRIDS
> Article H.3
> H.3.1. Hybrids between representatives of two or more taxa may receive a
> name. For nomenclatural purposes, the hybrid nature of a taxon is
> indicated by placing the multiplication sign × before the name of an
> intergeneric hybrid or before the epithet in the name of an interspecific
> hybrid, or by prefixing the term "notho-" (optionally abbreviated "n-") to
> the term denoting the rank of the taxon (see Art. 3.2 and 4.4). All such
> taxa are designated nothotaxa.
> 
> Ex. 1. (The putative or known parentage is found in Art. H.2 Ex. 1.)
> ×Agropogon P. Fourn. (1934); ×Agropogon littoralis (Sm.) C. E. Hubb.
> (1946); Salix ×capreola Andersson (1867); Mentha ×smithiana R. A. Graham
> (1949); Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp. mantoniae (Rothm.) Schidlay (in
> Futák, Fl. Slov. 2: 225. 1966).
> 
> </snip>
> 
> My comment: Since the multiplication sign is used it is clear that the
> hybrid indicator is not part of the scientific name, even without a space
> after it. If the hybrid indicator is instead the lowercase "x" rather than
> the multiplication sign, then that is where a space between the indicator
> and the name is preferable, so as to make clear that the "x" is not part
> of the name...
> 
> So maybe when parsing you have to expect any of the following:
> 
>  ×Foo (as per the official examples)
>  × Foo (also permissible I think, and widely used)
>  x Foo
> 
> but hopefully not xFoo (although there are certainly examples of the
> latter in e.g. the GBIF cache...).
> 
> Interestingly, the Kew list of angiosperm names on the web uses the style
> X Foo (even less correct)... e.g. see
> 
>  http://data.kew.org/cgi-bin/vpfg1992/genlist.pl?ORCHIDACEAE
> 
> (Just keeping you on your toes here)
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-
> > bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Murray
> > Sent: Friday, 10 December 2010 1:26 PM
> > To: Bob Morris
> > Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] canonical name for named hybrid &
> > infragenericnames [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> >
> >
> > On 10/12/2010, at 12:52 AM, Bob Morris wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks. To me what is interesting about this thread is that documents
> > > whose main(?) audience is authors and publishers, do not always
> > > address the needs of parser writers. It is a rare and happy
> > > circumstance for a programmer to have the document author to consult!
> > >
> > > What I \think/ is implied by your answer is (something that requires
> > > biological knowledge that I don't have, namely) that there are hybrid
> > > names which are not necessarily a cross of two things, but rather only
> > > one is mentioned.
> >
> > I have just been running through some code in APNI dealing with just
> this
> > issue. The cases handled by the code at present are:
> >
> > A generic name may be marked as a hybrid. It is rendered
> > 	× Foo
> >
> > An infrageneric name may be marked as a hybrid. It is rendered
> > 	$genericName × rank. bar
> >
> > A specific name may be marked as a hybrid. It is rendered
> > 	$genericName × bar
> >
> > An infraspecific name may be marked as a hybrid. Ii is rendered
> > 	$genericName bar rank. × baz
> >
> > And we have names that are hybrid names.
> >
> > 	hybrid_code 'I' --> foo - bar  (intergrade)
> > 	hybrid_code '+' --> foo + bar (graft)
> > 	hybrid_code 'U' --> foo hybrid (unspecified hybrid?)
> >
> > If foo or bar are themselves hybrids (a typical example being a grafting
> > with hybrids - I  think you get that sort of thing in commercial fruit
> > production), then that term must be enclosed in parenthesis.
> >
> > This last case illustrates the real problem: that a "single record"
> model
> > is not adequate for names that complex. These types of graftings
> > potentially have four different specific epithets.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content