<!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? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Van: dipteryx@freeler.nl [<A HREF="mailto:dipteryx@freeler.nl">mailto:dipteryx@freeler.nl</A>]<BR>
Verzonden: ma 22-11-2010 13:18<BR>
<BR>
> Van: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org namens greg whitbread<BR>
> Verzonden: zo 21-11-2010 11:22<BR>
<BR>
>> To complete the circle ...<BR>
<BR>
>> <A HREF="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/tdwg/plants.html">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/tdwg/plants.html</A> =<BR>
<BR>
>> Plant Taxonomic Database Standards No. 3<BR>
<BR>
> ***<BR>
> I have not looked at this in detail, but a truly outrageous<BR>
> error immediately jumps out!, where it says<BR>
> "The full name of an intergeneric hybrid has in addition<BR>
> an "x" (lower case alphabetic x symbol) preceding the<BR>
> generic name as a generic hybrid marker. "<BR>
<BR>
> "The full name of a named interspecific hybrid or chimaera<BR>
> has in addition an "x" (lower case alphabetic x) or "+"<BR>
> plus sign) preceding the species epithet"<BR>
<BR>
> There is no conceivable ambiguity in<BR>
> "Art. H.1.1. Hybridity is indicated by the use of the<BR>
> multiplication sign × or by the addition of the prefix<BR>
> “notho-”¹ to the term denoting the rank of the taxon."<BR>
<BR>
> There never has been a "(lower case alphabetic x)" allowed,<BR>
> except where there is force majeure.<BR>
> "Rec. H.3A.2. If the multiplication sign is not available<BR>
> it should be approximated by a lower case letter “x”<BR>
> (not italicized)."<BR>
<BR>
> (BTW, there is no such thing as a "species epithet" in botany;<BR>
> it is a "specific epithet").<BR>
<BR>
> Paul van Rijckevorsel<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
After looking at this paper a little more closely I see this<BR>
is not the brightest thing I could have said.<BR>
<BR>
There are three main issues with this paper (besides a lack<BR>
of rigour in the use of terms):<BR>
1) it is fifteen to twenty years out of date (it is dated 1994),<BR>
2) it represents a meeting of three worlds<BR>
a) name strings found in databases<BR>
b) names governed by the ICBN and ICNCP<BR>
c) the standards applied by the TDWG<BR>
and it is not always clear of what item or what usage belongs<BR>
to what world,<BR>
3) it is a little confused in its focus (what it does deal with<BR>
and what it does not deal with).<BR>
<BR>
Paul van Rijckevorsel<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>