Don't forget that 1994 publication (copyrighted by TDWG as ISBN 0-913196-62-2, and a prior TDWG standard) that Greg Whitbread sent out and called “full circle” It spells out how to handle Plant Names in databases. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/tdwg/plants.html
Plant name structure has changed minimally since 1994 (ICBN revisions in 99 and 05) so this comprehensive document is still somewhat relevant except for all the various name “Levels” which have not been adopted by any of the more modern standards, but the same topics have been passed around in detail of late. And we now have UTF-8 which enables the multiplication sign recommended but unavailable with ASCII only.
The various sections in this publication concerning hybrids say:
Intergeneric hybrids (and graft chimaeras)
The full name of an intergeneric hybrid has in addition an "x" (lower case alphabetic x symbol) preceding the generic name as a generic hybrid marker. Similarly the name of an intergeneric graft-chimaera is preceded by a "+" (plus symbol). The lower case x symbol is used instead of the multiplication sign, which is not available in the ASCII character set of most computers. Wherever possible this symbol should be converted back to a multiplication sign in typesetting or printing operations. To distinguish the marker from the following name, a space should separate them in data files.
´ Cupressocyparis leylandii (A.B. Jacks. & Dallim.) Dallim.
´
intergeneric hybrid marker
Cupressocyparis
genus name
leylandii
species epithet
(A.B. Jacks. & Dallim.) Dallim.
author string
Interspecific hybrids (and graft chimaeras)
The full name of a named interspecific hybrid or chimaera has in addition an "x" (lower case alphabetic x) or "+" (plus sign) preceding the species epithet. As above, the alphabetic x substitutes for a multiplication sign.
Spartina ´ townsendii H.Groves & J.Groves
Spartina
genus name
´
interspecific hybrid marker
townsendii
species epithet
H.Groves & J.Groves
author string
The full name of an interspecific hybrid that has not been named, that is one given by hybrid formula, is composed of two parts, the genus name and the hybrid formula. The hybrid formula is given in place of the species epithet element. Again an alphabetic x substitutes for a multiplication sign.
Primula veris ´ vulgaris
Primula
genus name
veris ´ vulgaris
hybrid formula
Content:
• An "´ " or "+" placed before a hybrid or chimaera genus name.
Composed of:
• x (lower case alphabetic x) or + (addition sign).
Examples:
´ Cupressocyparis leylandii
+ Crataegomespilus dardariiRules:
• Each full name of an intergeneric hybrid must include the ´ marker.
• Each full name of an intergeneric chimaera must include the + marker.
• The alphabetic x substitutes in computers for the multiplication sign specified by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Whenever possible it should be replaced by a multiplication sign in printed output.
• In printout the x (or multiplication sign, ´ , if available) or + is normally printed adjacent to the name with no intervening space. However, in data files they should be separated by a space to ensure that the marker is not confused with the first letter of the name.
Other Standards:
• In ITF and HISPID; unspecified in CHIN.
Content:
• The ´ marker for named interspecific hybrids or the + marker for named interspecific chimaeras.
Composed of:
• "´ " (lower case alphabetic x) or "+" (addition sign).
Example:
Spartina ´ townsendii
Rules:
• Each full name of a named interspecific hybrid must contain the ´ symbol. This is placed before the species epithet without an intervening space in printed output. However, it should be separated in data files by an intervening space to ensure that it is not confused with the first letter of the name.
• Each full name of a named interspecific chimaera must contain the + symbol placed before the species epithet.
Other Standards:
• ITF, HISPID; not specified in CHIN.
-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Bob Morris
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:13 PM
To: Markus Döring (GBIF)
Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] canonical name for named hybrid & infragenericnames
Your placement of the multiplication sign × does not seem code compliant. It looks too close. Maybe. Also there might be a question about whether a TDWG requirement to use the multiplication sign can be easily implemented by all providers.
On these subjects The Appendix on Hybrid Names of ICBN seems contradictory in that H.3A.1 (http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0071AppendixINoHa003.htm, quoted
below) seems to allow your placement, but Note 1. there seems to require space. Note 1. would, with H.3A.1 imply that there must be more white space to the left than right of the multiplication sign or its surrogate. One spacing that seems to violate all interpretations of A.3A.1 is equal white space around the multiplication sign. My guess is that the overwhelming fraction of printed hybrid names are thereby noncompliant unless something elsewhere resolves the issue).
Making the amount of white space significant in a parsed string is a horrifying thought.
--Bob Morris
"Recommendation H.3A
H.3A.1. The multiplication sign ×, indicating the hybrid nature of a taxon, should be placed so as to express that it belongs with the name or epithet but is not actually part of it. The exact amount of space, if any, between the multiplication sign and the initial letter of the name or epithet should depend on what best serves readability.
Note 1. The multiplication sign × in a hybrid formula is always placed between, and separate from, the names of the parents.
H.3A.2. If the multiplication sign is not available it should be approximated by a lower case letter “x” (not italicized)."
http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0071AppendixINoHa003.htm
======================
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM, "Markus Döring (GBIF)"
<mdoering@gbif.org> wrote:
> talking about canonical names again I want to use the oppertunity and get rid of another question I have.
> What is the code compliant canonical version of named hybrids (not formulas) and infrageneric names?
>
>
> Are these examples correct?
>
> Botanical section:
> verbatim: Maxillaria sect. Multiflorae Christenson
> canonical: Maxillaria sect. Multiflorae
>
> Botanical subgenus:
> verbatim: Anthemis subgen. Maruta (Cass.) Tzvelev
> canonical: Anthemis subgen. Maruta
>
> Botanical series:
> verbatim: Artemisia ser. Codonocephalae (Pamp.) Y.R.Ling
> canonical: Artemisia ser. Codonocephalae
>
> Zoological subgenus:
> verbatim: Murex (Promurex) Ponder & Vokes, 1988
> canonical: Murex subgen. Promurex
> # if we use parenthesis to indicate the subgenus we can only guess if
> its an author or subgenus name
>
> Zoological species
> verbatim: Leptochilus (Neoleptochilus) beaumonti Giordani Soika 1953
> canonical: Leptochilus beaumonti
>
>
>
> Botanical named genus hybrid:
> verbatim: ×Agropogon littoralis (Sm.) C. E. Hubb.
> canonical: ×Agropogon littoralis
>
> Botanical named infrageneric hybrid:
> verbatim: Eryngium nothosect. Alpestria Burdet & Miège
> canonical: Eryngium nothosect. Alpestria
>
> Botanical named species hybrid:
> verbatim: Salix ×capreola Andersson (1867)
> canonical: Salix ×capreola Andersson (1867)
>
> Botanical variety, named species hybrid:
> verbatim: Populus ×canadensis var. serotina (R. Hartig) Rehder
> canonical: Populus ×canadensis var. serotina
>
> Botanical named infraspecific hybrid:
> verbatim: Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp. mantoniae(Rothm.) Schidlay
> canonical: Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp. mantoniae
>
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 17:09, David Remsen (GBIF) wrote:
>
>> Markus and I wanted to try to consolidate the issues related to the current use and definition of scientificName that have been the focus of last weeks discussion in as simple a way as we can and leave it with a simple proposal which we will add to the issue tracking on the project site.
>>
>> 1. We propose that a new term, dwc:verbatimScientificName carry the
>> existing definition for dwc:scientificName and 2. dwc:scientificName
>> follow the more accepted convention that is better represented by the
>> earlier proposed definition for Canonical Name
>>
>> The intention is to enable data publishers to distinguish unparsed, complex scientific names from more cleanly separated scientific name data. This will relieve consumers of these data from testing each instance of a name for one of these two conditions.
>>
>> Here are the definitions for the two existing terms that have been part of the discussion:
>>
>> dwc:scientificName - The full scientific name, with authorship and date information if known. When forming part of an Identification, this should be the name in lowest level taxonomic rank that can be determined. This term should not contain identification qualifications, which should instead be supplied in the IdentificationQualifier term.
>>
>> dwc:scientificNameAuthorship - The authorship information for the scientificName formatted according to the conventions of the applicable nomenclaturalCode.
>>
>> Here are terms and definitions used in the following 5 source data configurations we came up with. They don't have to be exact for this purpose.
>>
>> canonical name - The nomenclatural components of a scentific name without authorship information.
>> authorship - the authorship information that follows a scientific
>> name verbatim name - the verbatim text stored in a source database when it differs from or combines the two definitions above. This is a bit more broad than the def for scientificName.
>>
>> We identified the following configurations in a source database and
>> how they would be mapped to the existing terms. In cases 4 and 5 we
>> also propose how we would map these were there a 3rd available term
>> (called 'mapping b:')
>>
>> When a source database contains:
>>
>> 1. canonical names only
>>
>> Mapping: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName
>>
>> 2. canonical name and authorship in two fields
>>
>> Mapping: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName /
>> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship
>>
>> 3. verbatim name only
>>
>> Mapping: verbatim name -> dwc:scientificName
>>
>> 4. all three: canonical name, authorship, and verbatim name in 3
>> diff. columns
>>
>> Mapping a: verbatim name -> dwc:scientificName /
>> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship
>>
>> Mapping b: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName /
>> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship / verbatim name ->
>> dwc:verbatimScientificName
>>
>> 5. a mix of canonical and verbatim names in a single column
>>
>> Mapping a: verbatim name + canonical names -> dwc:scientificName
>>
>> Mapping b: verbatim name + canonical names ->
>> dwc:verbatimScientificName
>>
>> Summary - with the current two terms are left with no choice but to support both canonical and verbatim names in a single term, which makes consuming these data difficult.
>>
>> We propose that a new term, dwc:verbatimScientificName carry the
>> existing definition for dwc:scientificName and that
>> dwc:scientificName follow the more accepted convention that is better
>> represented by the definition for Canonical Name
>>
>> Best,
>> David Remsen / Markus Döring
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-content mailing list
>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
--
Robert A. Morris
Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390
Associate, Harvard University Herbaria
email: morris.bob@gmail.com
web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list