<!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] canonical name for named hybrid &infragenericnames</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Well, as pointed out earlier, this 'standard' is now fifteen to twenty<BR>
years out of date, although strictly speaking, it never was quite<BR>
accurate, ever.<BR>
<BR>
Paul van Rijckevorsel<BR>
<BR>
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----<BR>
Van: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org namens Bob Morris<BR>
Verzonden: wo 8-12-2010 22:05<BR>
Aan: Chuck Miller<BR>
CC: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; Markus Döring (GBIF)<BR>
Onderwerp: Re: [tdwg-content] canonical name for named hybrid &infragenericnames<BR>
<BR>
Actually I wasn't forgetting it, I was ignoring it and its cousins, because<BR>
they are TDWG "Prior Standards" in the specific sense that they are "Standards<BR>
that were ratified prior to 2005 and that are not currently being promoted<BR>
for ratification under the post 2006 ratification process. These standards<BR>
currently lack a 'champion' to bring them into line with the draft<BR>
specification and submit them to the new standards development process<BR>
adopted in St Louis in 2006."<BR>
Are you offering to become its champion? :-)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller@mobot.org> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Don't forget that 1994 publication (copyrighted by TDWG as ISBN<BR>
> 0-913196-62-2, and a prior TDWG standard) that Greg Whitbread sent out and<BR>
> called "full circle" It spells out how to handle Plant Names in databases.<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>
><BR>
><BR>
> Plant name structure has changed minimally since 1994 (ICBN revisions in 99<BR>
> and 05) so this comprehensive document is still somewhat relevant except for<BR>
> all the various name "Levels" which have not been adopted by any of the more<BR>
> modern standards, but the same topics have been passed around in detail of<BR>
> late. And we now have UTF-8 which enables the multiplication sign<BR>
> recommended but unavailable with ASCII only.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> The various sections in this publication concerning hybrids say:<BR>
><BR>
> *Intergeneric hybrids (and graft chimaeras)*<BR>
><BR>
> The full name of an intergeneric hybrid has in addition an "x" (lower case<BR>
> alphabetic x symbol) preceding the generic name as a generic hybrid marker.<BR>
> Similarly the name of an intergeneric graft-chimaera is preceded by a "+"<BR>
> (plus symbol). The lower case x symbol is used instead of the multiplication<BR>
> sign, which is not available in the ASCII character set of most computers.<BR>
> Wherever possible this symbol should be converted back to a multiplication<BR>
> sign in typesetting or printing operations. To distinguish the marker from<BR>
> the following name, a space should separate them in data files.<BR>
><BR>
> ´ *Cupressocyparis leylandii* (A.B. Jacks. & Dallim.) Dallim.<BR>
><BR>
> ´<BR>
><BR>
> intergeneric hybrid marker<BR>
><BR>
> *Cupressocyparis*<BR>
><BR>
> genus name<BR>
><BR>
> *leylandii*<BR>
><BR>
> species epithet<BR>
><BR>
> (A.B. Jacks. & Dallim.) Dallim.<BR>
><BR>
> author string<BR>
><BR>
> *Interspecific hybrids (and graft chimaeras)*<BR>
><BR>
> The full name of a named interspecific hybrid or chimaera has in addition<BR>
> an "x" (lower case alphabetic x) or "+" (plus sign) preceding the species<BR>
> epithet. As above, the alphabetic x substitutes for a multiplication sign.<BR>
><BR>
> *Spartina* ´ *townsendii* H.Groves & J.Groves<BR>
><BR>
> *Spartina*<BR>
><BR>
> genus name<BR>
><BR>
> ´<BR>
><BR>
> interspecific hybrid marker<BR>
><BR>
> *townsendii*<BR>
><BR>
> species epithet<BR>
><BR>
> H.Groves & J.Groves<BR>
><BR>
> author string<BR>
><BR>
> The full name of an interspecific hybrid that has not been named, that is<BR>
> one given by hybrid formula, is composed of two parts, the genus name and<BR>
> the hybrid formula. The hybrid formula is given in place of the species<BR>
> epithet element. Again an alphabetic x substitutes for a multiplication<BR>
> sign.<BR>
><BR>
> *Primula veris* ´ *vulgaris*<BR>
><BR>
> *Primula*<BR>
><BR>
> genus name<BR>
><BR>
> *veris* ´ *vulgaris*<BR>
><BR>
> hybrid formula<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> *Name element 1: Intergeneric hybrid (or chimaera) marker*<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Content:<BR>
><BR>
> . An "´ " or "+" placed before a hybrid or chimaera genus name.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Composed of:<BR>
><BR>
> . x (lower case alphabetic x) or + (addition sign).<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Examples:<BR>
><BR>
> ´ *Cupressocyparis leylandii<BR>
> + Crataegomespilus dardarii*<BR>
><BR>
> Rules:<BR>
><BR>
> . Each full name of an intergeneric hybrid must include the ´ marker.<BR>
> . Each full name of an intergeneric chimaera must include the + marker.<BR>
> . The alphabetic x substitutes in computers for the multiplication sign<BR>
> specified by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Whenever<BR>
> possible it should be replaced by a multiplication sign in printed output.<BR>
> . In printout the x (or multiplication sign, ´ , if available) or + is<BR>
> normally printed adjacent to the name with no intervening space. However, in<BR>
> data files they should be separated by a space to ensure that the marker is<BR>
> not confused with the first letter of the name.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Other Standards:<BR>
><BR>
> . In ITF and HISPID; unspecified in CHIN.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> *Name element 3: Interspecific hybrid (or chimaera) marker*<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Content:<BR>
><BR>
> . The ´ marker for named interspecific hybrids or the + marker for named<BR>
> interspecific chimaeras.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Composed of:<BR>
><BR>
> . "´ " (lower case alphabetic x) or "+" (addition sign).<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Example:<BR>
><BR>
> *Spartina* ´ *townsendii*<BR>
><BR>
> Rules:<BR>
><BR>
> . Each full name of a named interspecific hybrid must contain the ´symbol. This is placed before the species epithet without an intervening<BR>
> space in printed output. However, it should be separated in data files by an<BR>
> intervening space to ensure that it is not confused with the first letter of<BR>
> the name.<BR>
> . Each full name of a named interspecific chimaera must contain the +<BR>
> symbol placed before the species epithet.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Other Standards:<BR>
><BR>
> . ITF, HISPID; not specified in CHIN.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:<BR>
> tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Bob Morris<BR>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:13 PM<BR>
> To: Markus Döring (GBIF)<BR>
> Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org List<BR>
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] canonical name for named hybrid &<BR>
> infragenericnames<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Your placement of the multiplication sign × does not seem code compliant.<BR>
> It looks too close. Maybe. Also there might be a question about whether a<BR>
> TDWG requirement to use the multiplication sign can be easily implemented by<BR>
> all providers.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On these subjects The Appendix on Hybrid Names of ICBN seems contradictory<BR>
> in that H.3A.1 (<A HREF="http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0071AppendixINoHa003.htm">http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0071AppendixINoHa003.htm</A>,<BR>
> quoted<BR>
><BR>
> below) seems to allow your placement, but Note 1. there seems to require<BR>
> space. Note 1. would, with H.3A.1 imply that there must be more white space<BR>
> to the left than right of the multiplication sign or its surrogate. One<BR>
> spacing that seems to violate all interpretations of A.3A.1 is equal white<BR>
> space around the multiplication sign. My guess is that the overwhelming<BR>
> fraction of printed hybrid names are thereby noncompliant unless something<BR>
> elsewhere resolves the issue).<BR>
><BR>
> Making the amount of white space significant in a parsed string is a<BR>
> horrifying thought.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> --Bob Morris<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> "Recommendation H.3A<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> H.3A.1. The multiplication sign ×, indicating the hybrid nature of a taxon,<BR>
> should be placed so as to express that it belongs with the name or epithet<BR>
> but is not actually part of it. The exact amount of space, if any, between<BR>
> the multiplication sign and the initial letter of the name or epithet should<BR>
> depend on what best serves readability.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Note 1. The multiplication sign × in a hybrid formula is always placed<BR>
> between, and separate from, the names of the parents.<BR>
><BR>
> H.3A.2. If the multiplication sign is not available it should be<BR>
> approximated by a lower case letter "x" (not italicized)."<BR>
><BR>
> <A HREF="http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0071AppendixINoHa003.htm">http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0071AppendixINoHa003.htm</A><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> ======================<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM, "Markus Döring (GBIF)"<BR>
><BR>
> <mdoering@gbif.org> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> > talking about canonical names again I want to use the oppertunity and get<BR>
> rid of another question I have.<BR>
><BR>
> > What is the code compliant canonical version of named hybrids (not<BR>
> formulas) and infrageneric names?<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Are these examples correct?<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Botanical section:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Maxillaria sect. Multiflorae Christenson<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Maxillaria sect. Multiflorae<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Botanical subgenus:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Anthemis subgen. Maruta (Cass.) Tzvelev<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Anthemis subgen. Maruta<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Botanical series:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Artemisia ser. Codonocephalae (Pamp.) Y.R.Ling<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Artemisia ser. Codonocephalae<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Zoological subgenus:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Murex (Promurex) Ponder & Vokes, 1988<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Murex subgen. Promurex<BR>
><BR>
> > # if we use parenthesis to indicate the subgenus we can only guess if<BR>
><BR>
> > its an author or subgenus name<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Zoological species<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Leptochilus (Neoleptochilus) beaumonti Giordani Soika 1953<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Leptochilus beaumonti<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Botanical named genus hybrid:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: ×Agropogon littoralis (Sm.) C. E. Hubb.<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: ×Agropogon littoralis<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Botanical named infrageneric hybrid:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Eryngium nothosect. Alpestria Burdet & Miège<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Eryngium nothosect. Alpestria<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Botanical named species hybrid:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Salix ×capreola Andersson (1867)<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Salix ×capreola Andersson (1867)<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Botanical variety, named species hybrid:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Populus ×canadensis var. serotina (R. Hartig) Rehder<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Populus ×canadensis var. serotina<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > Botanical named infraspecific hybrid:<BR>
><BR>
> > verbatim: Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp. mantoniae(Rothm.) Schidlay<BR>
><BR>
> > canonical: Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp. mantoniae<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> > On Dec 8, 2010, at 17:09, David Remsen (GBIF) wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> >> Markus and I wanted to try to consolidate the issues related to the<BR>
> current use and definition of scientificName that have been the focus of<BR>
> last weeks discussion in as simple a way as we can and leave it with a<BR>
> simple proposal which we will add to the issue tracking on the project site.<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> 1. We propose that a new term, dwc:verbatimScientificName carry the<BR>
><BR>
> >> existing definition for dwc:scientificName and 2. dwc:scientificName<BR>
><BR>
> >> follow the more accepted convention that is better represented by the<BR>
><BR>
> >> earlier proposed definition for Canonical Name<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> The intention is to enable data publishers to distinguish unparsed,<BR>
> complex scientific names from more cleanly separated scientific name data.<BR>
> This will relieve consumers of these data from testing each instance of a<BR>
> name for one of these two conditions.<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Here are the definitions for the two existing terms that have been part<BR>
> of the discussion:<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> dwc:scientificName - The full scientific name, with authorship and date<BR>
> information if known. When forming part of an Identification, this should be<BR>
> the name in lowest level taxonomic rank that can be determined. This term<BR>
> should not contain identification qualifications, which should instead be<BR>
> supplied in the IdentificationQualifier term.<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> dwc:scientificNameAuthorship - The authorship information for the<BR>
> scientificName formatted according to the conventions of the applicable<BR>
> nomenclaturalCode.<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Here are terms and definitions used in the following 5 source data<BR>
> configurations we came up with. They don't have to be exact for this<BR>
> purpose.<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> canonical name - The nomenclatural components of a scentific name<BR>
> without authorship information.<BR>
><BR>
> >> authorship - the authorship information that follows a scientific<BR>
><BR>
> >> name verbatim name - the verbatim text stored in a source database when<BR>
> it differs from or combines the two definitions above. This is a bit more<BR>
> broad than the def for scientificName.<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> We identified the following configurations in a source database and<BR>
><BR>
> >> how they would be mapped to the existing terms. In cases 4 and 5 we<BR>
><BR>
> >> also propose how we would map these were there a 3rd available term<BR>
><BR>
> >> (called 'mapping b:')<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> When a source database contains:<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> 1. canonical names only<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Mapping: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> 2. canonical name and authorship in two fields<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Mapping: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName /<BR>
><BR>
> >> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> 3. verbatim name only<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Mapping: verbatim name -> dwc:scientificName<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> 4. all three: canonical name, authorship, and verbatim name in 3<BR>
><BR>
> >> diff. columns<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Mapping a: verbatim name -> dwc:scientificName /<BR>
><BR>
> >> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Mapping b: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName /<BR>
><BR>
> >> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship / verbatim name -><BR>
><BR>
> >> dwc:verbatimScientificName<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> 5. a mix of canonical and verbatim names in a single column<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Mapping a: verbatim name + canonical names -> dwc:scientificName<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Mapping b: verbatim name + canonical names -><BR>
><BR>
> >> dwc:verbatimScientificName<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Summary - with the current two terms are left with no choice but to<BR>
> support both canonical and verbatim names in a single term, which makes<BR>
> consuming these data difficult.<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> We propose that a new term, dwc:verbatimScientificName carry the<BR>
><BR>
> >> existing definition for dwc:scientificName and that<BR>
><BR>
> >> dwc:scientificName follow the more accepted convention that is better<BR>
><BR>
> >> represented by the definition for Canonical Name<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> Best,<BR>
><BR>
> >> David Remsen / Markus Döring<BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >><BR>
><BR>
> >> _______________________________________________<BR>
><BR>
> >> tdwg-content mailing list<BR>
><BR>
> >> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<BR>
><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>
> > tdwg-content mailing list<BR>
><BR>
> > tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<BR>
><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>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> --<BR>
><BR>
> Robert A. Morris<BR>
><BR>
> Emeritus Professor of Computer Science<BR>
><BR>
> UMASS-Boston<BR>
><BR>
> 100 Morrissey Blvd<BR>
><BR>
> Boston, MA 02125-3390<BR>
><BR>
> Associate, Harvard University Herbaria<BR>
><BR>
> email: morris.bob@gmail.com<BR>
><BR>
> web: <A HREF="http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/">http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/</A><BR>
><BR>
> web: <A HREF="http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush">http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush</A><BR>
><BR>
> <A HREF="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram</A><BR>
><BR>
> phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)<BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
><BR>
> tdwg-content mailing list<BR>
><BR>
> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<BR>
><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>
Robert A. Morris<BR>
Emeritus Professor of Computer Science<BR>
UMASS-Boston<BR>
100 Morrissey Blvd<BR>
Boston, MA 02125-3390<BR>
Associate, Harvard University Herbaria<BR>
email: morris.bob@gmail.com<BR>
web: <A HREF="http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/">http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/</A><BR>
web: <A HREF="http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush">http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush</A><BR>
<A HREF="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram</A><BR>
phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>