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

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: dipteryx at freeler.nl [mailto:dipteryx at freeler.nl]
Verzonden: ma 22-11-2010 13:18

> Van: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org namens greg whitbread
> Verzonden: zo 21-11-2010 11:22

>> To complete the circle ...

>> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/tdwg/plants.html  =

>> Plant Taxonomic Database Standards No. 3

> ***
> I have not looked at this in detail, but a truly outrageous 
> error immediately jumps out!, where it says
>    "The full name of an intergeneric hybrid has in addition
>     an "x" (lower case alphabetic x symbol) preceding the
>     generic name as a generic hybrid marker. "

>    "The full name of a named interspecific hybrid or chimaera
>     has in addition an "x" (lower case alphabetic x) or "+"
>     plus sign) preceding the species epithet"

> There is no conceivable ambiguity in
>     "Art. H.1.1.  Hybridity is indicated by the use of the
>      multiplication sign × or by the addition of the prefix
>     “notho-”¹ to the term denoting the rank of the taxon."

> There never has been a "(lower case alphabetic x)" allowed,
> except where there is force majeure.
>     "Rec. H.3A.2.  If the multiplication sign is not available
>      it should be approximated by a lower case letter “x”
>     (not italicized)."

> (BTW, there is no such thing as a "species epithet" in botany;
> it is a "specific epithet").

> Paul van Rijckevorsel

***
After looking at this paper a little more closely I see this 
is not the brightest thing I could have said.

There are three main issues with this paper (besides a lack 
of rigour in the use of terms):
1) it is fifteen to twenty years out of date (it is dated 1994),
2) it represents a meeting of three worlds 
      a) name strings found in databases
      b) names governed by the ICBN and ICNCP
      c) the standards applied by the TDWG
   and it is not always clear of what item or what usage belongs 
   to what world,
3) it is a little confused in its focus (what it does deal with 
   and what it does not deal with). 

Paul van Rijckevorsel





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101123/9b9c3c07/attachment.html