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

[Jim Croft]

Candidly, I would love to get rid of the infraspecific rank thing in
botany and work with tri- or perhaps even poly- nominals, but history,
practice and the code are against it.

I don't like to say nice things about zoologists, but I think they got
this one right. :)

Jim

On Friday, November 19, 2010, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it would be useful though to have a canonicalName field that only takes "Genus specificEpithet infraspecificEpithet" and no more.
>
> (I think we need to add the rank string. Same epithet for subsp. and
> var. is not unusual in Botany/Mycology. Gregor)
> _______________________________________________
> 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