[tdwg-content] canonical name for named hybrid & infragenericnames

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Dear all,

Paul Murray wrote:

> A generic name may be marked as a hybrid. It is rendered
> 	× Foo


Actually my understanding is that ×Foo is the Code-endorsed version:


<snip>

APPENDIX I
NAMES OF HYBRIDS
Article H.3
H.3.1. Hybrids between representatives of two or more taxa may receive a name. For nomenclatural purposes, the hybrid nature of a taxon is indicated by placing the multiplication sign × before the name of an intergeneric hybrid or before the epithet in the name of an interspecific hybrid, or by prefixing the term "notho-" (optionally abbreviated "n-") to the term denoting the rank of the taxon (see Art. 3.2 and 4.4). All such taxa are designated nothotaxa.

Ex. 1. (The putative or known parentage is found in Art. H.2 Ex. 1.) ×Agropogon P. Fourn. (1934); ×Agropogon littoralis (Sm.) C. E. Hubb. (1946); Salix ×capreola Andersson (1867); Mentha ×smithiana R. A. Graham (1949); Polypodium vulgare nothosubsp. mantoniae (Rothm.) Schidlay (in Futák, Fl. Slov. 2: 225. 1966).

</snip>

My comment: Since the multiplication sign is used it is clear that the hybrid indicator is not part of the scientific name, even without a space after it. If the hybrid indicator is instead the lowercase "x" rather than the multiplication sign, then that is where a space between the indicator and the name is preferable, so as to make clear that the "x" is not part of the name...

So maybe when parsing you have to expect any of the following:

 ×Foo (as per the official examples)
 × Foo (also permissible I think, and widely used)
 x Foo

but hopefully not xFoo (although there are certainly examples of the latter in e.g. the GBIF cache...).

Interestingly, the Kew list of angiosperm names on the web uses the style X Foo (even less correct)... e.g. see

 http://data.kew.org/cgi-bin/vpfg1992/genlist.pl?ORCHIDACEAE 

(Just keeping you on your toes here)

Regards - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Murray
> Sent: Friday, 10 December 2010 1:26 PM
> To: Bob Morris
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] canonical name for named hybrid &
> infragenericnames [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________