Names in titles

Frederick J. Peabody fpeabody at SUNFLOWR.USD.EDU
Fri Feb 28 08:33:38 CST 1997


Indeed, this sounds silly.  The paper that describes a new species should,
IMHO, contain a reference, including the new name, in the abstract.  I
have seen this many times in botanical papers.  It is a great service to
the scientific community to include new names in the abstract since many
bibliographic services are "abstracting" services and will only reproduce
an abstract.  Whether or not the new name is used in the title of the
paper is simply a matter of the author's preference.

Frederick J. Peabody
Associate Professor of Botany
University of South Dakota
414 East Clark Street
Vermillion, SD  57069  USA
fpeabody at sundance.usd.edu

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, richard a fagerlund wrote:

> I would like the opinion of anyone or everyone who describes new taxa.
> The question came up with insects but it probably relevant to any taxa
> zoological or botanical.
>
> I was told by one reviewer that the name of a new taxa should never
> appear in the title of the paper or even the abstract or introduction.
> The rationale was that the taxa is not officially named until the description
> later in the paper and the name cannot be used until officially described.
> I thought that was a bit silly.
>
> I would welcome any comments or opinions on this.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Richard Fagerlund                    Mail: 993 Orchid SW
> University of New Mexico                   Rio Rancho, NM 87124
> E-mail: fagerlun at unm.edu            Phone: (505) 896-2524
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list