[tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad?

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Thu Nov 18 23:57:17 CET 2010


Well, that sounds fine to me, however you may note that the ICZN Code at least expressly states that authorship is *not* part of the scientific name:

"Article 51. Citation of names of authors.

51.1. Optional use of names of authors. The name of the author does not form part of the name of a taxon and its citation is optional, although customary and often advisable."

I vaguely remember this has been discussed before - would anyone care to comment further?

Cheers - Tony
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Döring [mailto:m.doering at mac.com]
> Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 9:49 AM
> To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); David Remsen
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org List
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC
> scientificName: good or bad?
> 
> Sorry if I wasnt clear, but definitely b)
> Not all names can be easily reassembled with just the atoms. Autonyms need
> a bit of caution, hybrid formulas surely wont fit into the atoms and
> things like Inula L. (s.str.) or Valeriana officinalis s. str. wont be
> possible either. dwc:scientificName should be the most complete
> representation of the full name. The (redundant) atomised parts are a
> recommended nice to have to avoid any name parsing.
> 
> As a consumer this leads to trouble as there is no guarantee that all
> terms exist. But the same problem exists with all of the ID terms and
> their verbatim counterpart. Only additional best practice guidelines can
> make sure we have the most important terms such as taxonRank or
> taxonomicStatus available.
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 23:26, Tony.Rees at csiro.au wrote:
> 
> > Just re-sending the message below because it bounced the first time.
> >
> >
> > Markus/all,
> >
> > I guess my point is that (as I understand it) scientificName is a
> required field in DwC, so the question is what it should be populated
> with. If it is (e.g.) genus + species epithet + authority, then is it
> beneficial to supply these fields individually / atomised as well, maybe
> with other qualifiers as needed?
> >
> > Just looking for an example "best practice" here - or maybe it exists
> somewhere and you can just point to it.
> > in other words:
> >
> > (a)
> > <scientificName>Homo sapiens</scientificName>
> > <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a>
> >
> > or (b):
> > <scientificName>Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758</scientificName>
> > <genus>Homo</genus>
> > <specificEpithet>sapiens</specificEpithet>
> > <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a>
> >
> > if you get my drift...
> >
> > Regards  - Tony
> >
> > Tony Rees
> > Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
> > CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
> > GPO Box 1538,
> > Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
> > Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
> > Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
> > e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> > Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
> > Biodiversity informatics research activities:
> http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
> > Personal info:
> http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-content mailing list
> > tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content



More information about the tdwg-content mailing list