To add to Gregor's post

scientificNameAuthorship common usage assumes that a name is a linear
construct which is true for many cases. However in general scientific
name is a tree, and it is most obvious with names of hybrids. So when
people try to apply solutions like splitting name to canonical form
and authorship, it won't work for everybody and everything

Dima

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com> wrote:

- When providers had a text blob for the name, separate from the text blob

for the authorship, they could concatenate the two for presentation in

scientificName, and also provide the authorship bit in

scientificNameAuthorship, and the consumers could easily strip the

authorship from scientificName to produce the functional equivalent of a

canonical name.

this does not work for autonyms in botany, i.e. the infraspecific taxa where

the infraspecific epithet and the specific epithet are the same. Here the

author is before the infraspecific epithet. Inconvenient, but prevents the

simplest solution.

_______________________________________________

tdwg-content mailing list

tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org

http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content