Fw: Genus as the species
w.wuster at BANGOR.AC.UK
Mon Apr 12 14:11:49 CDT 1999
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Walter Boeger wrote:
> Dear all,
> I am sorry to bring this up again, but I am not 100% convinced yet...
> Article 5 of the ICZN says: "The scientific name of a species, and not of=
> taxon of any other rank, is a COMBINATION OF TWO NAMES (A BINOMEN), the
> first being the generic name and the second the specific name....".
> In my opinion (still, since I am not convinced that I was wrong at start)=
> that EVEN IN A LIST one has to provide the scientific name as such:
> R. piranhus
> R. bulbovaginatus
> R. nyttus
> R. arietinus
> and NOT like this:
> I know the first option is slightly longer but it seems to me that if you
> present a UNINOMEN you are NOT talking about a species nor following the
I agree with you where tables are concerned.
The kind of scenario I had in mind would be a sentence which includes a=20
listing of species or subspecies.
For instance, the sentence "In Crotalus, highly lethal venoms have been
found in C. durissus, C. scutulatus, C. tigris and C. viridis" is a lot
more cumbersome than the sentence "In Crotalus, highly lethal venoms
have been found in C. durissus, scutulatus, tigris and viridis".=20
When trinomials are used, the mass of abbreviations gets even worse.
"The subspecies of Crotalus durissus found in Brazil are cascavella,
collilineatus, ruruima and terrificus" reads a lot better then "The
subspecies of Crotalus durissus found in Brazil are C. d. cascavella, C.=20
d. collilineatus, C. d. ruruima and C. d. terrificus".=20
Obviously, clarity is priority no. 1, but I see no great sin or major
problem in ommitting the genus (and species) initial in the above
examples. The prose certainly flows more smoothly in the "paralegal"
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