Fw: Genus as the species
wboeger at BIO.UFPR.BR
Fri Apr 9 19:00:46 CDT 1999
Hey, I may be worng afterall. Do everyone agree with Dr. W|ster
----- Original Message -----
From: W.Wuster <w.wuster at BANGOR.AC.UK>
To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sent: Sexta-feira, 9 de Abril de 1999 11:09
Subject: Re: Fw: Genus as the species
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Walter Boeger wrote:
> This reminds me a major problem (in my opinion) seem in other "major"
> journals. Some people is allowed to use the specific epithet alone
> to refer to certain species... Even if it is often evident
> (considering the whole paper) which species is one talking about,
> where does the Article 5 of the code go in this case?
I have a hard time seeing this as a MAJOR problem.
I cannot see anything in Article 5 that governs specifically the use of
the specific epithet on its own, although I would agree that, in most
cases, the inclusion of the genus, or its initial, would be better.
The use of the specific epithet alone can be convenient in some cases,
especially if one is discussing whether the given taxon should treated
as a species or a subspecies (e.g., "the evidence suggests that smithi
should be considered a species, not a subspecies"). Also, when dealing
with a plethora of congeneric species, or when listing them in
continuous text (as opposed to a table), the repetition of the generic
initial can get a bit tedious in extreme cases.
School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK
e-mail: w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk WWW: http://sbsweb.bangor.ac.uk/
More information about the Taxacom