Van: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org namens Niels Klazenga Verzonden: vr 19-11-2010 15:20
Author citations are not there to make a name look more scientific, but are an essential part of a scientific name. They make the name unique; without authorship they not necessarily are. Officially, a scientific name without authorship is not a scientific name.
*** No, they are not part of the name, see Art. 46.1. Also, authorship does not make a name unique. One and the same name may be rendered with different authorships in different publications, without this making a difference. Also, to some extent, loosely speaking, there may be differences even though the authorship is the same. * * *
- Pinus pinus is not an autonym, but a tautonym. In botanical
nomenclature tautonyms are not valid.
*** If precision is the order of the day, Pinus pinus is not a tautonym. It would be a tautonym if it existed. However, it cannot be validly published, so it cannot become a name (or a tautonym). * * *
- Autonyms do serve a purpose: Acacia dealbata Link. subsp.
dealbata indicates a different taxon than Acacia dealbata Link.
*** It would, provided these are viewed from the same taxonomic viewpoint. If this is not assured, it could also be the same taxon. * * *
- Autonyms do in fact have authors, namely the author(s) of
the earliest infraspecific name of the same rank (with the same parent). While authors of infraspecific autonyms are rarely used, you'll need to cite them for 'infrainfraspecific' autonyms. So, Garovaglia powellii Mitt. subsp. powellii, but Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri (Hampe) During (var. muelleri was created as an autonym of Garovaglia powellii subsp. muelleri).
*** No, this last is not possible, see Art. 26. Autonyms do not have authors. * * *
- Just because botanists often cite authors after both the
specific and infraspecific epithets doesn't make it right, in fact it's wrong. The authorship of a specific name has got nothing to do with the infraspecific name; you might as well cite the author of the generic name too. So, Centaurea apiculata subsp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál, not Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. subsp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál (it is also 'subsp.', not 'ssp.'). Unfortunately, also Index Kewensis (in IPNI) cites authors of specific names in infraspecific names; TROPICOS (or APNI), fortunately, does not.
*** Yes, on the "subsp." I do not see support on it being wrong to cite authorship of a species name; in most circumstances it is superfluous, but I can think of cases where it would be desirable.
Sorry for the lecturing, Paul