<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>Re: [tdwg-content] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName:good or bad? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Van: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org namens Niels Klazenga<BR>
Verzonden: vr 19-11-2010 15:20<BR>
<BR>
> Author citations are not there to make a name look more scientific,<BR>
> but are an essential part of a scientific name. They make the name<BR>
> unique; without authorship they not necessarily are. Officially,<BR>
> a scientific name without authorship is not a scientific name.<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
No, they are not part of the name, see Art. 46.1. Also, authorship<BR>
does not make a name unique. One and the same name may be rendered<BR>
with different authorships in different publications, without this making a difference. Also, to some extent, loosely speaking, there<BR>
may be differences even though the authorship is the same.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> - Pinus pinus is not an autonym, but a tautonym. In botanical<BR>
> nomenclature tautonyms are not valid.<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
If precision is the order of the day, Pinus pinus is not a<BR>
tautonym. It would be a tautonym if it existed. However, it cannot<BR>
be validly published, so it cannot become a name (or a tautonym).<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> - Autonyms do serve a purpose: Acacia dealbata Link. subsp.<BR>
> dealbata indicates a different taxon than Acacia dealbata Link.<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
It would, provided these are viewed from the same taxonomic<BR>
viewpoint. If this is not assured, it could also be the same taxon.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> - Autonyms do in fact have authors, namely the author(s) of<BR>
> the earliest infraspecific name of the same rank (with the same<BR>
> parent). While authors of infraspecific autonyms are rarely used,<BR>
> you'll need to cite them for 'infrainfraspecific' autonyms. So,<BR>
> Garovaglia powellii Mitt. subsp. powellii, but Garovaglia powellii<BR>
> var. muelleri (Hampe) During (var. muelleri was created as an<BR>
> autonym of Garovaglia powellii subsp. muelleri).<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
No, this last is not possible, see Art. 26.<BR>
Autonyms do not have authors.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> - Just because botanists often cite authors after both the<BR>
> specific and infraspecific epithets doesn't make it right,<BR>
> in fact it's wrong. The authorship of a specific name has got<BR>
> nothing to do with the infraspecific name; you might as well<BR>
> cite the author of the generic name too. So, Centaurea apiculata<BR>
> subsp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál, not Centaurea apiculata Ledeb.<BR>
> subsp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál (it is also 'subsp.', not 'ssp.').<BR>
> Unfortunately, also Index Kewensis (in IPNI) cites authors of<BR>
> specific names in infraspecific names; TROPICOS (or APNI),<BR>
> fortunately, does not.<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
Yes, on the "subsp." I do not see support on it being wrong to cite<BR>
authorship of a species name; in most circumstances it is superfluous,<BR>
but I can think of cases where it would be desirable.<BR>
<BR>
Sorry for the lecturing,<BR>
Paul</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>