Well, that sounds fine to me, however you may note that the ICZN Code at least expressly states that authorship is *not* part of the scientific name:
"Article 51. Citation of names of authors.
51.1. Optional use of names of authors. The name of the author does not form part of the name of a taxon and its citation is optional, although customary and often advisable."
I vaguely remember this has been discussed before - would anyone care to comment further?
Cheers - Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Markus Döring [mailto:m.doering@mac.com] Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 9:49 AM To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); David Remsen Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad?
Sorry if I wasnt clear, but definitely b) Not all names can be easily reassembled with just the atoms. Autonyms need a bit of caution, hybrid formulas surely wont fit into the atoms and things like Inula L. (s.str.) or Valeriana officinalis s. str. wont be possible either. dwc:scientificName should be the most complete representation of the full name. The (redundant) atomised parts are a recommended nice to have to avoid any name parsing.
As a consumer this leads to trouble as there is no guarantee that all terms exist. But the same problem exists with all of the ID terms and their verbatim counterpart. Only additional best practice guidelines can make sure we have the most important terms such as taxonRank or taxonomicStatus available.
Markus
On Nov 18, 2010, at 23:26, Tony.Rees@csiro.au wrote:
Just re-sending the message below because it bounced the first time.
Markus/all,
I guess my point is that (as I understand it) scientificName is a
required field in DwC, so the question is what it should be populated with. If it is (e.g.) genus + species epithet + authority, then is it beneficial to supply these fields individually / atomised as well, maybe with other qualifiers as needed?
Just looking for an example "best practice" here - or maybe it exists
somewhere and you can just point to it.
in other words:
(a) <scientificName>Homo sapiens</scientificName> <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a>
or (b): <scientificName>Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758</scientificName> <genus>Homo</genus> <specificEpithet>sapiens</specificEpithet> <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a>
if you get my drift...
Regards - Tony
Tony Rees Manager, Divisional Data Centre, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318) Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000) e-mail: Tony.Rees@csiro.au Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/ Biodiversity informatics research activities:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
Personal info:
http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content