Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Jim, You are right about the authorship not being part of the name under Art. 46.1. I must have confused ICBN with HISPID or TCS or something, as I have in my head that a scientific name always includes the authorship (as I still believe it should).
You are misinterpreting Art. 26.1 though, as that only applies to names of infraspecific taxa that include the type of the specific name. Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri (Hampe) During doesn't. On the other hand, I was wrong as well, as Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri is not strictly an autonym, as infraspecific names that include the type of a subspecies or variety are merely covered by recommendations (26A.1, 26A.3). Can't believe I never saw this before, as I have always wondered how to deal with those things.
We have names with multiple infraspecific epithets in our collection as well and I haven't worked out yet how to deal with them. At the moment it is possible to have both Garovaglia powellii subsp. muelleri var. muelleri and Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri and I have a problem with that as these are not just two names that are based on the same type, but are the same name. Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri, by the way, is the only Australian moss name that has ever been given two infraspecific epithets, which is why I keep repeating it as it is the only example I know.
For some reason I feel really strongly about not having authors of species names within infraspecific-taxon names, even though I have been guilty of the practice myself. There is no such hierarchy among names as there is among taxa; a name is just a name. The author of a species name has as little to do with the publication of a name of an infraspecific taxon as the author of a genus name has with the publication of a species name. Including the authorship of a species name in the citation of an infraspecific taxon name is just as silly as citing the author of the generic name within a species name citation would be. Also, the aim of a standard (this whole thing started as a discussion on inclusion of authors in scientific names in Darwin Core) is to standardise, right? Just because some botanists think it useful to have authors of species names in infraspecific-taxon names does not mean it should be part of a standard or that it is correct.
At any given time and any given context, Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata indicates a more narrowly circumscribed taxon than Acacia dealbata. Just because taxon concepts change and not everyone has the same taxon concept doesn't mean the 'subsp. dealbata' bit is meaningless.
The Pinus pinus thing was a bit careless of me. Let's just say it was late (15:20 in The Netherlands is 1:20 here).
Never realised I was arguing with another Dutchman. At this point I am actually not sure who I am arguing with.
Niels
Jim Croft 11/20/10 9:04 AM >>>
One thing I will not buy into is an argument between two Dutchmen... Been there before... ;)
Thanks for clarifying the tautonym thing; knew it was there, just could not remember it's name. Strange that one code allows it and the other doesn't.
The multiple infraspecific ranks thing is interesting. We took them all out when we learned they were optional and only the lowest was necessary. Then we found we had to put them back in when we realized that the herbarium was curated according the full hierarchy. :)
I guess it points out the vale of keeping all the parts and then assembling them according to the needs of the particular context.
Jim
On Saturday, November 20, 2010, wrote:
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
From: "Niels Klazenga" Niels.Klazenga@rbg.vic.gov.au Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:00 AM
[...]
You are misinterpreting Art. 26.1 though, as that only applies to names of infraspecific taxa that include the type of the specific name. Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri (Hampe) During doesn't. On the other hand, I was wrong as well, as Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri is not strictly an autonym, as infraspecific names that include the type of a subspecies or variety are merely covered by recommendations (26A.1, 26A.3). Can't believe I never saw this before, as I have always wondered how to deal with those things.
*** Once upon a time such things as "(var. muelleri was created as an autonym of Garovaglia powellii subsp. muelleri)" did happen. However, this went out with the 1972 Code, and any such autonym that was created before that time stopped existing at that moment, retroactively (unless it had also been published in its own right). So this has nothing to do with autonyms (as they exist now).
BTW: I do realize it must be killing for 'biodiversity informaticians' to have to deal with names that are governed by retroactive Codes. There you have this perfectly respectable scientific name in this perfectly respectable book, but it so happens that there is a change in the relevant Code, and then: poof!, the name not only stops existing but it never was, in the first place. Dust blowing in the wind... Must be maddening! * * *
[...]
At any given time and any given context, Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata indicates a more narrowly circumscribed taxon than Acacia dealbata. Just because taxon concepts change and not everyone has the same taxon concept doesn't mean the 'subsp. dealbata' bit is meaningless.
*** Not sure what this means. A name is a label. A taxon is circumscribed by a taxonomist who then attaches a name to his taxon. At a given time and place, it is possible to open two books, and have one refer to a taxon with a name such as Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata which is wider circumscribed than the taxon in the other book with a name such as Acacia dealbata. It all depends on taxonomic viewpoint.
Paul
participants (2)
-
Niels Klazenga -
Paul van Rijckevorsel