[tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Jim Croft jim.croft at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 06:59:17 CET 2010


Just quickly Paul, botanist would *never* say Pinus L. pinus, or Pinus
pinus pinus L.  If we needed the author string (and I admit we grossly
overuse it where it is not necessary, probably becasue it makes things
look scientific and important) we would go for something like Pinus
patula (personWhoCreatedTheEpithet)
personWhoMovedTheEpithetIntoThisGenus.  For some inexplicable reason
zoologists throw away the parentheses and the stuff following.

For an autonum, from the Glossary in the 2006 botanical code, p. 484 "
autonym: ... specific epithet repeated without an author citation as
the final epithet in the name of ... an infraspecific taxon name that
included the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the ... species
..."

Thus, if you wanted to render an autonymic name with author, it would
be something like:
Pinus patula authorString var. patula
The autonymic infraspecies epithet appears never to have an author;
the authorship is implied from the authorship of the species epithet.

jim

p.s. also, avoid modelling hybrids and hybrid formulae - therein lies
madness and putrifaction of the spirit...

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Paul Murray <pmurray at anbg.gov.au> wrote:
>        zoological -    Vombatus ursinus ursinus Mike
>        botanical - Pinus L. pinus

-- 
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point
of doubtful sanity.'
 - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)

Please send URIs, not attachments:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html


More information about the tdwg-content mailing list