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

Fri Nov 19 15:20:13 CET 2010

Never thought I would be able to contribute to this list, but since
we're talking botanical nomenclature, and since we're being pedantic...
If you want to standardise botanical names you want to follow the
standard that matters most in botanical nomenclature, the ICBN,
including its recommendations.

- 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.

- Pinus pinus is not an autonym, but a tautonym. In botanical
nomenclature tautonyms are not valid.

- Autonyms do serve a purpose: Acacia dealbata Link. subsp. dealbata
indicates a different taxon than Acacia dealbata Link.

- 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 authonym of Garovaglia powellii subsp.
muelleri).

- 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.

- One also should only use the lowest-ranked infraspecific epithet:
Garovaglia powellii var.muelleri (Hampe) During, not Garovaglia powellii
subsp. muelleri (Hampe) During var. muelleri. Centaurea affinis Ledeb.
subsp. affinis var. affinis is not a name but a classification, albeit a
very shallow one.

Sorry for the lecturing.

Niels

Niels Klazenga
Pacific Dunlop Research Fellow/Bryologist
National Herbarium of Victoria, Royal Botanic Gardens
Birdwood Avenue
South Yarra, VIC 3141
Australia
Tel: (03) 9252 2369
Fax: (03) 9252 2350
e-mail: Niels.Klazenga at rbg.vic.gov.au
>>> Jim Croft  11/19/10 4:17 PM >>>
Also gently, botanists generally don't do Pinus pinus or Pinus pinus
pinus.  We do Pinus patula var. patula (or Pinus patula subsp.
patula).  These are autonyms that are not published as such but come
into existence 'automagically' when another variety or subspecies is
described. They do not actually serve any useful purpose other than to
alert you that there are other varieties or subspecies in this species
to be aware of and that you are not dealing with them in this case.

In the hypothetical instance above, you could assume that 'Pinus
patula' referred to Pinus patula var. patula and you might be right.
But it might also refer to the the range of variation covered by the
other varieties as well.  To resolve this you really need some other
contextual information such as whether you are dealing with broader
concept or the narrower one before or after the other components were
excised from or added to the mix.

If you were goign to invent a taxonomic and nomenclatural system from
scratch, with the benefit of hindsight and the absence of legacy
practice, there is no way on earth you would ever do it like this...
:)

jim

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Paul Murray  wrote:
> It has just been gently explained to me the Pinus pinus is not an
autonym, although Pinus pinus pinus is. I suppose this underscores the
point that IT people building systems and webpages out of this data will
tend not to get it right if just given the data fields.
>
> On 19/11/2010, at 1:08 PM, Paul Murray wrote:
>
>>> some quick additions to my previous mail in haste:
>>>
>>> I am referring to the new Darwin Core as referred to be Tony, not
the ontology/tdwg vocabulary which predates the latest Darwin Core.
>>>
>>> When dealing with hybrid formulas and informal conceptual hints like
sensu strictu/latu a full namestring is also useful. For determination
derived artifacts like cf. or aff.  darwin core has an
identificationQualifier term:
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#identificationQualifier
>>>
>>> And there really is no need for a canonicalName term as I suggested
below as we have the 3 parts (Genus, specificEpithet,
infraspecificEpithet) already as atoms.
>>>
>>
>> This is an issue we are struggling with now. Getting from the data
items and flags to a correctly laid out name string is not at all
trvial.
>>
>> For botanical names, if the third term of the name is not a ssp, then
you need the rank:
>>       A-us b-us var. d-us
>>
>> There may also be a hybrid mark, which may appear .... actually, I
need to confirm this: I think it may appear right at the front, or it
may appear in front of the terminal epithet - I'm not sure whther it
replaces the rank code or has to appear on one side of it:
>>       X A-us b-us var. d-us
>>       A-us b-us var. X  d-us
>>       A-us b-us X var. d-us
>>
>> To correctly compose botanical names, there is a rule that is
different from the zoological rule: for autonyms, the botanists prefer
that the authority string appear after the "root" name, not after the
whole name:
>>       zoological -    Vombatus ursinus ursinus Mike
>>       botanical - Pinus L. pinus
>>
>> And so you need to know a) is the name an autonym? and b) is it
botanical?
>>
>> Cultivar names may be introduced with a psudeo-rank of "cv." or by
putting the cultivar name in quotes. Cultivar names are not italicised.
And this is not even to begin discussing hybrids and grafts. Oh - and I
believe that sometimes zoologists like the family name in square
brackets in front of the name. And there's also nomenclatural
status/qualifier: "nom. cons." etc.
>>
>> And so on and so forth. Lord only knows how virologists name their
taxa.
>>
>> The difficulty is: we want our data to be useable by web
applications, which is why we produce JSON. It's not sensible to expect
that every javascript programmer is going to get this stuff right. We
cannot simply give enough data that - if you know all the rules - you
can get it correct. What we have concluded is that our data needs to
have an item in it that will permit a programmer to easily render the
name correctly, and that this needs to be separate from the fields as
data.
>>
>> There are a couple of options so far:
>>
>> * an array or RDF "list" of components, each component being an
object with a string and some sort of indicator as to whether it should
be italicised or not
>>
>> * a format string into which the components of the name are
substituted.
>> For instance: the format string for a subspecies might be "{G} {s}
{e}" (e for epithet), wheras that for a form or variety would be "{G}
{s} {r} {e}". We would wind up with - hopefully - a manageable list of
formats.
>>
>> * an XHTML literal (rdf:parseType="literal"), making use of span
elements and css classes to permit finer control over formatting. XHTML
is the applcable standard for formatted text.
>> We would use  tags where appropriate, so that with no css at all the
scientific name still comes out correctly. Thus:
>> 
>>       Vombatus
>>       ursinus
>>       ursinus
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or
any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not
constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in
respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>

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

-- 
This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the sender and/or copyright owner.

It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses. 

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

This email was Anti Virus checked by RBG Astaro Mail Gateway. 