Right....I'll amend my previous recommendation:
When a source database maintains separate fields corresponding to scientificName and scientificNameAuthorship, they should be concatenated (with a single space between them) in most cases, or formatted appropriately for botanical autonyms, to form the required verbatimScientificName
Rich
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content- bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Gregor Hagedorn Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:50 PM To: David Remsen (GBIF) Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] proposed term: dwc:verbatimScientificName
I am missing a canonical name including authorship. Rebuilding the
canonical
name from name without authorship and authorship requires parsing into the name, determining whether the name is an autonym, and if so, rebuilding. Assuming not separate autonym status is transmitted, this
means
parsing EVERY name before being able to output a name with authors.
scientificName: Lobelia spicata var. spicata scientificNameAuthorship: Lam. -> Lobelia spicata Lam. var. spicata
Gregor _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content