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

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org namens Markus Döring
Verzonden: ma 22-11-2010 12:03
 
[...]
> That leads me to another question. Does the canonical name 
> string for an infraspecific taxon include the rank marker? 
> Ideally I think it shouldnt as the main point for having 
> a canonical name string is to have a string that is highly
> similar across different sources. Removing the rank marker
> not only avoids spelling variations, but also zoologists 
> pretty much only deal with subspecies and they dont have 
> to use a rank marker. 
[...]

***
>From a nomenclatural point of view this can be argued either 
way. The scientific name is indeed "Lactuca macrophylla
uralensis" and if there are two such names, based on different 
types, these are homonyms (irrespective of rank). However,
the name cannot be rendered this way, as "Lactuca macrophylla 
subsp. uralensis" and "Lactuca macrophylla var. uralensis" 
are different things.

Also keep in mind that the same issue can also be found for 
subdivisions of genera, e.g. "Euphorbia subg. Euphorbia", etc.

Paul van Rijckevorsel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101122/a4862833/attachment.html