<!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 authorship in DwCscientificName: 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 Roderic Page<BR>
Verzonden: zo 21-11-2010 9:58<BR>
<BR>
[...]<BR>
> I think Bob Morris was pointing out, in the vast majority of<BR>
> cases biologists use binomials without author names quite<BR>
> happily, and manage to get by just fine.<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
And so they should, as that is how a system of nomenclature<BR>
is designed to work, no matter what Code applies.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> For all the potential ambiguity, people will rely on naked<BR>
> scientific names,<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
The only ambiguity here is that the circumscription / definition<BR>
of the taxon is not mentioned (this is fine where it is<BR>
automatically implied, but often this is not the case).<BR>
The nomenclatural author is just a (fleeting) detail, to be<BR>
adjusted as needed.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> [...] so it seems to me to be obvious that anybody<BR>
> exporting data in this area needs to provide a field that<BR>
> contains just the name. Failure to do this makes consuming<BR>
> the data harder than it needs to be, and that would be a mistake.<BR>
<BR>
> By all means add additional information in other fields,<BR>
> but doesn't<BR>
<BR>
> dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum<BR>
> dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758<BR>
<BR>
> pretty much cover what most people need? The vast majority<BR>
> of people consuming data will want just the name, so make<BR>
> that front and centre. The single most important value<BR>
> shouldn't be one people have to construct from the data.<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
It looks that way to me, also.<BR>
<BR>
Paul van Rijckevorsel</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>