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