Just quickly Paul, botanist would *never* say Pinus L. pinus, or Pinus pinus pinus L. If we needed the author string (and I admit we grossly overuse it where it is not necessary, probably becasue it makes things look scientific and important) we would go for something like Pinus patula (personWhoCreatedTheEpithet) personWhoMovedTheEpithetIntoThisGenus. For some inexplicable reason zoologists throw away the parentheses and the stuff following.
For an autonum, from the Glossary in the 2006 botanical code, p. 484 " autonym: ... specific epithet repeated without an author citation as the final epithet in the name of ... an infraspecific taxon name that included the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the ... species ..."
Thus, if you wanted to render an autonymic name with author, it would be something like: Pinus patula authorString var. patula The autonymic infraspecies epithet appears never to have an author; the authorship is implied from the authorship of the species epithet.
jim
p.s. also, avoid modelling hybrids and hybrid formulae - therein lies madness and putrifaction of the spirit...
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Paul Murray pmurray@anbg.gov.au wrote:
zoological - Vombatus ursinus ursinus Mike botanical - Pinus L. pinus