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

[Niels Klazenga]

Jim,
You are right about the authorship not being part of the name under Art.
46.1. I must have confused ICBN with HISPID or TCS or something, as I
have in my head that a scientific name always includes the authorship
(as I still believe it should).


You are misinterpreting Art. 26.1 though, as that only applies to names
of infraspecific taxa that include the type of the specific name.
Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri (Hampe) During doesn't. On the other
hand, I was wrong as well, as Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri is not
strictly an autonym, as infraspecific names that include the type of a
subspecies or variety are merely covered by recommendations (26A.1,
26A.3). Can't believe I never saw this before, as I have always wondered
how to deal with those things.


We have names with multiple infraspecific epithets in our collection as
well and I haven't worked out yet how to deal with them. At the moment
it is possible to have both Garovaglia powellii subsp. muelleri var.
muelleri and Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri and I have a problem with
that as these are not just two names that are based on the same type,
but are the same name. Garovaglia powellii var. muelleri, by the way, is
the only Australian moss name that has ever been given two infraspecific
epithets, which is why I keep repeating it as it is the only example I
know.


For some reason I feel really strongly about  not having authors of
species names within infraspecific-taxon names, even though I have been
guilty of the practice myself. There is no such hierarchy among names as
there is among taxa; a name is just a name. The author of a species name
has as little to do with the publication of a name of an infraspecific
taxon as the author of a genus name has with the publication of a
species name. Including the authorship of a species name in the citation
of an infraspecific taxon name is just as silly as citing the author of
the generic name within a species name citation would be. Also, the aim
of a standard (this whole thing started as a discussion on inclusion of
authors in scientific names in Darwin Core) is to standardise, right?
Just because some botanists think it useful to have authors of species
names in infraspecific-taxon names does not mean it should be part of a
standard or that it is correct.


At any given time and any given context, Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata
indicates a more narrowly circumscribed taxon than Acacia dealbata. Just
because taxon concepts change and not everyone has the same taxon
concept doesn't mean the 'subsp. dealbata' bit is meaningless.


The Pinus pinus thing was a bit careless of me. Let's just say it was
late (15:20 in The Netherlands is 1:20 here).


Never realised I was arguing with another Dutchman. At this point I am
actually not sure who I am arguing with.


Niels

>>> Jim Croft  11/20/10 9:04 AM >>>
One thing I will not buy into is an argument between two Dutchmen...
Been there before... ;)

Thanks for clarifying the tautonym thing; knew it was there, just
could not remember it's name. Strange that one code allows it and the
other doesn't.

The multiple infraspecific ranks thing is interesting. We took them
all out when we learned they were optional and only the lowest was
necessary. Then we found we had to put them back in when we realized
that the herbarium was curated according the full hierarchy.  :)

I guess it points out the vale of keeping all the parts and then
assembling them according to the needs of the particular context.

Jim

On Saturday, November 20, 2010,   wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
_________________
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





-- 
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.