[tdwg-content] canonical name for named hybrid & infrageneric names

Bob Morris morris.bob at gmail.com
Wed Dec 8 20:12:42 CET 2010


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 at 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 at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> 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 at gmail.com
web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/
web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)


More information about the tdwg-content mailing list