On 10/12/2010, at 12:52 AM, Bob Morris wrote:
Thanks. To me what is interesting about this thread is that documents whose main(?) audience is authors and publishers, do not always address the needs of parser writers. It is a rare and happy circumstance for a programmer to have the document author to consult!
What I \think/ is implied by your answer is (something that requires biological knowledge that I don't have, namely) that there are hybrid names which are not necessarily a cross of two things, but rather only one is mentioned.
I have just been running through some code in APNI dealing with just this issue. The cases handled by the code at present are:
A generic name may be marked as a hybrid. It is rendered × Foo
An infrageneric name may be marked as a hybrid. It is rendered $genericName × rank. bar
A specific name may be marked as a hybrid. It is rendered $genericName × bar
An infraspecific name may be marked as a hybrid. Ii is rendered $genericName bar rank. × baz
And we have names that are hybrid names.
hybrid_code 'I' --> foo - bar (intergrade) hybrid_code '+' --> foo + bar (graft) hybrid_code 'U' --> foo hybrid (unspecified hybrid?)
If foo or bar are themselves hybrids (a typical example being a grafting with hybrids - I think you get that sort of thing in commercial fruit production), then that term must be enclosed in parenthesis.
This last case illustrates the real problem: that a "single record" model is not adequate for names that complex. These types of graftings potentially have four different specific epithets.
_______________________________________________
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.