<!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 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Van: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org namens Tony.Rees@csiro.au<BR>
Verzonden: za 11-12-2010 22:10<BR>
<BR>
> In any case, to summarise, a recipient / parser of incoming<BR>
> taxonomic names and associated data must therefore be able<BR>
> to cope successfully with hybrid indicators for genera in<BR>
> any of the following formats:<BR>
<BR>
> ×Foo (ICBN preferred usage as per examples)<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
Yes, the preferred style.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> × Foo (apparently tolerated, since white space appears to be optional??)<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
This is not merely tolerated, but perfectly in order.<BR>
It is a matter of style.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> x Foo (ICBN preferred alternative)<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
No, this is disallowed by the ICBN (Art. H.1). This is<BR>
something that is only to be used when out of reach of<BR>
a computer, as in when using a typewriter.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> X Foo (apparently incorrect, but found in some quite<BR>
> reputable systems)<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
Again, disallowed by the ICBN.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> xFoo (again, probably tolerated, but not sure...)<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
Again, disallowed by the ICBN.<BR>
* * *<BR>
<BR>
> I am also presuming that in all these cases, the equivalent<BR>
> canonical version would be Foo. Does this mean that an extra<BR>
> DwC field would also be needed now, for hybrid indicator?<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
In that case it is a good idea to keep in mind that this extra<BR>
DwC field for hybrid indicator would be needed at each of the<BR>
three levels.<BR>
<BR>
Paul van Rijckevorsel<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>