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

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Folks,

I found the following worked example at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Examples#Taxonomic_Treatment,_normalised

which agrees with Marcus' reading below:

  dwc:taxonID=10400156
  dwc:parentNameUsageID=10400152
  dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum Linnaeus, 1758
  dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758
  dwc:taxonRank=species
  dwc:taxonomicStatus=valid
  dwc:nomenclaturalCode=ICZN
  dwc:namePublishedIn=Syst. Nat., 10th ed., 1: 55.
  dwc:taxonRemarks=Corbet and Hill (1980), Hall (1981), Husson (1978), and Pine (1973) used Metachirops opossum for this species. Reviewed by Castro-Arellano et al. (2000, Mammalian Species, 638). The name D. larvata Jentink, 1888, is a nomen nudum. Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species for Holothylax Cabrera, 1919.
  dwc:vernacularName=Gray Four-eyed Opossum
  dc:source=http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=10400156


However the practical implication of this is that a name parser now has to extract the "scientific name without authority" (a.k.a. canonical name) elements from the element "dwc:scientificName", by one of 2 possible methods: (1) from first principles as per the GNA names parser (which could in theory be tripped up by unexpected/non-standard content), or (2) by doing a substraction / difference between the "dwc:scientificName" and "dwc:scientificNameAuthorship" fields, which could be similarly tripped up by bad or mismatched content, or by a null in the second field event though there is an authority included in the first.

So, is this still the best method? One could say that genus, species epithet fields etc. are also available which could solve this, but in practice these are populated erratically by different data providers...

Suggestions, comments still appreciated...

Regards - Tony

________________________________________
From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au [Tony.Rees at csiro.au]
Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 9:57 AM
To: m.doering at mac.com; dremsen at gbif.org
Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad?

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

_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content