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

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org namens Niels Klazenga
Verzonden: vr 19-11-2010 15:20

> 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.

***
No, they are not part of the name, see Art. 46.1. Also, authorship 
does not make a name unique. One and the same name may be rendered 
with different authorships in different publications, without this making a difference. Also, to some extent, loosely speaking, there 
may be differences even though the authorship is the same.
* * *

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

***
If precision is the order of the day, Pinus pinus is not a 
tautonym. It would be a tautonym if it existed. However, it cannot
be validly published, so it cannot become a name (or a tautonym).
* * *

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

***
It would, provided these are viewed from the same taxonomic 
viewpoint. If this is not assured, it could also be the same taxon. 
* * *

> - 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 
> autonym of Garovaglia powellii subsp. muelleri).

***
No, this last is not possible, see Art. 26. 
Autonyms do not have authors.
* * *

> - 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.

***
Yes, on the "subsp." I do not see support on it being wrong to cite 
authorship of a species name; in most circumstances it is superfluous,
but I can think of cases where it would be desirable.

Sorry for the lecturing,
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101119/a1ce025b/attachment.html