<!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 DwC scientificName: good or bad?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Van: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org namens Markus Döring<BR>
Verzonden: ma 22-11-2010 12:03<BR>
<BR>
[...]<BR>
> That leads me to another question. Does the canonical name<BR>
> string for an infraspecific taxon include the rank marker?<BR>
> Ideally I think it shouldnt as the main point for having<BR>
> a canonical name string is to have a string that is highly<BR>
> similar across different sources. Removing the rank marker<BR>
> not only avoids spelling variations, but also zoologists<BR>
> pretty much only deal with subspecies and they dont have<BR>
> to use a rank marker.<BR>
[...]<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
>From a nomenclatural point of view this can be argued either<BR>
way. The scientific name is indeed "Lactuca macrophylla<BR>
uralensis" and if there are two such names, based on different<BR>
types, these are homonyms (irrespective of rank). However,<BR>
the name cannot be rendered this way, as "Lactuca macrophylla<BR>
subsp. uralensis" and "Lactuca macrophylla var. uralensis"<BR>
are different things.<BR>
<BR>
Also keep in mind that the same issue can also be found for<BR>
subdivisions of genera, e.g. "Euphorbia subg. Euphorbia", etc.<BR>
<BR>
Paul van Rijckevorsel<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>