<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><title>Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorshipin DwC scientificName: good or bad?</title><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not at all. I guess the question is whether DwC allows us to transmit a name as it was published/labelled etc, or only a correctly structured name according to the relevant code?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>dipteryx@freeler.nl<br><b>Sent:</b> 19 November 2010 12:42<br><b>To:</b> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorshipin DwC scientificName: good or bad?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>A botanical name consists of at most three parts (Art 24.1),<br>so the name is Centaurea affinis affinis, although it may<br>not be written so: the correct way to write this is<br>Centaurea affinis var. affinis.<br><br>Of course it is possible to write Centaurea affinis subsp.<br>affinis var. affinis or to use any textstring whatsoever,<br>but that is not its botanical name.<br><br>Italics and parentheses are very much Code-specific.<br><br>Sorry to barge in,<br><br>Paul van Rijckevorsel<br><br><br>Van: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org namens John van Breda<br>Verzonden: vr 19-11-2010 13:06<br>Aan: 'David Remsen (GBIF)'; 'John van Breda'<br>CC: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; 'Jim Croft'; '"Markus Döring (GBIF)"'<br>Onderwerp: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorshipin DwC scientificName: good or bad?<br><br>Thanks David. Interesting results though - if I run Centaurea affinis Friv.<br>ssp. affinis var. Affinis then the canonical is returned as Centauzea<br>affinis affinis - note the change of the letter r to z. It also seems to<br>lose sight of the subspecies variant. It works well on Centaurea apiculata<br>Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál though.<br><br>That looks like it will be a really useful service.<br><br>John<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org<br>[<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>] On Behalf Of David Remsen<br>(GBIF)<br>Sent: 19 November 2010 11:51<br>To: John van Breda<br>Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; '"Markus Döring (GBIF)"'; 'Jim Croft'<br>Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC<br>scientificName: good or bad?<br><br>Correction<br><br><a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/parsers/new">http://gni.globalnames.org/parsers/new</a><br><br>The URI I circulated a moment ago comes AFTER you run a list of names <br>and doesn't seem friendly.<br><br>DR<br><br>On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:15 PM, John van Breda wrote:<br><br>> I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not <br>> repeating<br>> what has already been said, but botanical names can also have <br>> authorship at<br>> both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g.<br>> Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál<br>><br>> And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants, <br>> so 2<br>> infraspecific levels, e.g.<br>> Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis<br>><br>> Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be <br>> able to<br>> present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct <br>> place.<br>> E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not<br>> normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can <br>> include this<br>> formatting information in dwc:scientificName?<br>><br>> Regards<br>><br>> John<br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org<br>> [<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>] On Behalf Of "Markus <br>> Döring<br>> (GBIF)"<br>> Sent: 19 November 2010 09:24<br>> To: Roderic Page<br>> Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; Jim Croft<br>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC<br>> scientificName: good or bad?<br>><br>> What Darwin Core offers right now are 2 ways of expressing the name:<br>><br>> A) the complete string as dwc:scientificName<br>> B) the atomised parts:<br>> genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet,<br>> verbatimTaxonRank (+taxonRank), scientificNameAuthorship<br>><br>> Those 2 options are there to satisfy the different needs we have <br>> seen in<br>> this thread - the consumers call for a simple input and the need to <br>> express<br>> complex names in their verbatim form.<br>> Is there really anything we are missing?<br>><br>><br>><br>> When it comes to how its being used in the wild right now I agree <br>> with Dima<br>> that there is a lot of variety out there.<br>> It would be very, very useful if everyone would always publish both <br>> options<br>> in a consistent way.<br>><br>> Right now the fulI name can be found in once of these combinations:<br>> - scientificName<br>> - scientificName & scientificNameAuthorship<br>> - scientificName, taxonRank & scientificNameAuthorship<br>> - scientificName, verbatimTaxonRank & scientificNameAuthorship<br>> - genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet, taxonRank,<br>> scientificNameAuthorship<br>> - genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet,<br>> verbatimTaxonRank, scientificNameAuthorship<br>><br>> To make matters worse the way the authorship is expressed is also<br>> impressively rich of variants.<br>> In particular the use of brackets is not always consistent. You find <br>> things<br>> like:<br>><br>> # regular botanical names with ex authors<br>> Mycosphaerella eryngii (Fr. ex Duby) Johanson ex Oudem. 1897<br>><br>> # original name authors not in brackets, but year is<br>> Lithobius chibenus Ishii & Tamura (1994)<br>><br>> # original name in brackets but year not<br>> Zophosis persis (Chatanay), 1914<br>><br>> # names with imprint years cited<br>> Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ["1969"]<br>> Anomalopus truncatus (Peters, 1876 ["1877"])<br>> Deyeuxia coarctata Kunth, 1815 [1816]<br>> Proasellus arnautovici (Remy 1932 1941)<br>><br>><br>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:50, Roderic Page wrote:<br>><br>>> I'm with Jm. For the love of God let's keep things clean and simple.<br>>> Have a field for the name without any extraneous junk (and by that I<br>>> include authorship), and have a separate field for the name plus all<br>>> the extra stuff. Having fields that atomise the name is also useful,<br>>> but not at the expense of a field with just the name.<br>>><br>>> Please, please think of data consumers like me who have to parse this<br>>> stuff. There is no excuse in this day and age for publishing data <br>>> that<br>>> users have to parse before they can do anything sensible with it.<br>>><br>>> Regards<br>>><br>>> Rod<br>>><br>>><br>>> On 19 Nov 2010, at 07:06, Jim Croft wrote:<br>>><br>>>> Including the authors, dates and any thing else (with the <br>>>> exception of<br>>>> the infraspecific rank and teh hybrid symbol and in botany) as <br>>>> part of<br>>>> a thing called "the name" is an unholy abomination, a lexical<br>>>> atrocity, an affront to logic and an insult the natural order of the<br>>>> cosmos and any deity conceived by humankind.<br>>>><br>>>> In botany at least, the "name" (which I take to be the basic<br>>>> communication handle for a taxon) is conventionally the genus plus <br>>>> the<br>>>> species epithet (plus the infraspecies rank and the infraspecies <br>>>> name,<br>>>> if present). All else is protologue and other metadata (e. s.l. <br>>>> s.s,<br>>>> taxonomic qualifiers) some of which may be essential for name<br>>>> resolution, but metadata nevertheless. In much communication, the<br>>>> name can and does travel in the absense of its metadata; that is not<br>>>> to say it is a good or a bad thing, only that it happens. I am not<br>>>> saying thi binominal approach is a good thing, in many respects<br>>>> Linnaeus and the genus have a lot to answer for; but it what we have<br>>>> been given to work with.<br>>>><br>>>> in zoology... well, who can say what evil lurks within... but if <br>>>> what<br>>>> you say below is right, at least they got it right with the<br>>>> authorship... ;)<br>>>><br>>>> I think it is a really bad move to attempt to redefine "name" so <br>>>> as to<br>>>> include the name metadata to achieve some degree of name resolution<br>>>> (basically the list of attributes does not end until you have <br>>>> almost a<br>>>> complete bibliographic citation - is author abbreviation enough? no,<br>>>> add the full author surname? no, add the author initials? no, add <br>>>> the<br>>>> first name? no, add the transferring author? no, add the year of the<br>>>> publication? no, add the journal? no, add the article title? no, add<br>>>> the type specimen? no, add the... )<br>>>><br>>>> That is not to say these strings of the name and selected metadata <br>>>> are<br>>>> not useful, perhaps even essential, in certain contexts; only that <br>>>> we<br>>>> should not pretend or declare they are the "name". They are <br>>>> something<br>>>> else and we should find another "name" for them. "Scientific <br>>>> name" is<br>>>> not good enough as a normal person would interpret this as the latin<br>>>> name<br>>>><br>>>> Fortunately I think nearly every modern application keeps all the <br>>>> bits<br>>>> of the name and publication metadata separate in some form, so it is<br>>>> just a matter of geekery to glue them together in whatever <br>>>> combination<br>>>> we might require...<br>>>><br>>>> jim<br>>>><br>>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, <Tony.Rees@csiro.au> wrote:<br>>>>> Well, that sounds fine to me, however you may note that the ICZN<br>>>>> Code at least expressly states that authorship is *not* part of the<br>>>>> scientific name:<br>>>>><br>>>>> "Article 51. Citation of names of authors.<br>>>>><br>>>>> 51.1. Optional use of names of authors. The name of the author does<br>>>>> not form part of the name of a taxon and its citation is optional,<br>>>>> although customary and often advisable."<br>>>>><br>>>>> I vaguely remember this has been discussed before - would anyone<br>>>>> care to comment further?<br>>>>><br>>>>> Cheers - Tony<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>>>>>> From: Markus Döring [<a href="mailto:m.doering@mac.com">mailto:m.doering@mac.com</a>]<br>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 9:49 AM<br>>>>>> To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); David Remsen<br>>>>>> Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org List<br>>>>>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in<br>>>>>> DwC<br>>>>>> scientificName: good or bad?<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Sorry if I wasnt clear, but definitely b)<br>>>>>> Not all names can be easily reassembled with just the atoms.<br>>>>>> Autonyms need<br>>>>>> a bit of caution, hybrid formulas surely wont fit into the atoms <br>>>>>> and<br>>>>>> things like Inula L. (s.str.) or Valeriana officinalis s. str.<br>>>>>> wont be<br>>>>>> possible either. dwc:scientificName should be the most complete<br>>>>>> representation of the full name. The (redundant) atomised parts<br>>>>>> are a<br>>>>>> recommended nice to have to avoid any name parsing.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> As a consumer this leads to trouble as there is no guarantee that<br>>>>>> all<br>>>>>> terms exist. But the same problem exists with all of the ID terms<br>>>>>> and<br>>>>>> their verbatim counterpart. Only additional best practice<br>>>>>> guidelines can<br>>>>>> make sure we have the most important terms such as taxonRank or<br>>>>>> taxonomicStatus available.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Markus<br>>>>>><br>>>>>><br>>>>>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 23:26, Tony.Rees@csiro.au wrote:<br>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Just re-sending the message below because it bounced the first<br>>>>>>> time.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Markus/all,<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> I guess my point is that (as I understand it) scientificName is a<br>>>>>> required field in DwC, so the question is what it should be<br>>>>>> populated<br>>>>>> with. If it is (e.g.) genus + species epithet + authority, then is<br>>>>>> it<br>>>>>> beneficial to supply these fields individually / atomised as well,<br>>>>>> maybe<br>>>>>> with other qualifiers as needed?<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Just looking for an example "best practice" here - or maybe it<br>>>>>>> exists<br>>>>>> somewhere and you can just point to it.<br>>>>>>> in other words:<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> (a)<br>>>>>>> <scientificName>Homo sapiens</scientificName><br>>>>>>> <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> or (b):<br>>>>>>> <scientificName>Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758</scientificName><br>>>>>>> <genus>Homo</genus><br>>>>>>> <specificEpithet>sapiens</specificEpithet><br>>>>>>> <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> if you get my drift...<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Regards - Tony<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Tony Rees<br>>>>>>> Manager, Divisional Data Centre,<br>>>>>>> CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,<br>>>>>>> GPO Box 1538,<br>>>>>>> Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia<br>>>>>>> Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)<br>>>>>>> Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)<br>>>>>>> e-mail: Tony.Rees@csiro.au<br>>>>>>> Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, <a href="http://www.obis.org.au/">http://www.obis.org.au/</a><br>>>>>>> Biodiversity informatics research activities:<br>>>>>> <a href="http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm">http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm</a><br>>>>>>> Personal info:<br>>>>>> <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm">http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm</a>?<br>>>>>> id=1566<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>>>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>>>>>>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>>>>><br>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>>>>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br>>>>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> --<br>>>> _________________<br>>>> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~<br>>>> <a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft">http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft</a><br>>>> 'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the <br>>>> point<br>>>> of doubtful sanity.'<br>>>> - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)<br>>>><br>>>> Please send URIs, not attachments:<br>>>> <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html</a><br>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>>>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br>>>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>>>><br>>><br>>> ---------------------------------------------------------<br>>> Roderic Page<br>>> Professor of Taxonomy<br>>> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine<br>>> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences<br>>> Graham Kerr Building<br>>> University of Glasgow<br>>> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK<br>>><br>>> Email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk<br>>> Tel: +44 141 330 4778<br>>> Fax: +44 141 330 2792<br>>> AIM: rodpage1962@aim.com<br>>> Facebook: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192">http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192</a><br>>> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/rdmpage">http://twitter.com/rdmpage</a><br>>> Blog: <a href="http://iphylo.blogspot.com">http://iphylo.blogspot.com</a><br>>> Home page: <a href="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html</a><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br>>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br>tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br>tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>