<!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] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorshipin DwC scientificName: good or bad?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>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><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>