Van: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org namens Roderic Page Verzonden: zo 21-11-2010 9:58
[...]
I think Bob Morris was pointing out, in the vast majority of cases biologists use binomials without author names quite happily, and manage to get by just fine.
*** And so they should, as that is how a system of nomenclature is designed to work, no matter what Code applies. * * *
For all the potential ambiguity, people will rely on naked scientific names,
*** The only ambiguity here is that the circumscription / definition of the taxon is not mentioned (this is fine where it is automatically implied, but often this is not the case). The nomenclatural author is just a (fleeting) detail, to be adjusted as needed. * * *
[...] so it seems to me to be obvious that anybody exporting data in this area needs to provide a field that contains just the name. Failure to do this makes consuming the data harder than it needs to be, and that would be a mistake.
By all means add additional information in other fields, but doesn't
dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758
pretty much cover what most people need? The vast majority of people consuming data will want just the name, so make that front and centre. The single most important value shouldn't be one people have to construct from the data.
*** It looks that way to me, also.
Paul van Rijckevorsel