<!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: Gregor Hagedorn [<A HREF="mailto:g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com">mailto:g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com</A>]<BR>
Verzonden: ma 13-12-2010 16:57<BR>
<BR>
>> "H.3A.1. The multiplication sign ×, indicating the hybrid nature<BR>
>> of a taxon, should be placed so as to express that it belongs<BR>
>> with the name or epithet but is not actually part of it. [...]<BR>
>> should depend on what best serves readability."<BR>
<BR>
> My reading of this would be that a non-breaking space, possibly<BR>
> narrower, would satisfy both this statement and correct<BR>
> typographic typesetting (which does not endorse "M. ×piperita"<BR>
> -- the multiplication sign is designed to be used with spacing).<BR>
<BR>
***<BR>
Actually, it endorses anything, a full space, a half space, no space,<BR>
or whatever (with sophisticated typography, kerning, anything is<BR>
possible), as long as it is clear that the multiplication sign is<BR>
not part of the name. A character that is read by a machine as a<BR>
space, but by the eye as a not-space is perfectly OK.<BR>
<BR>
I never heard of any natural or higher law that requires a<BR>
multiplication sign to be used with spacing. Here it is just a typographic character that can be used any which way, just like<BR>
most any other typographic character. The ICBN uses it without<BR>
a space, a perfectly acceptable style.<BR>
<BR>
Paul<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>