Question about authorship of new names in zoology

Robin Leech releech at TELUSPLANET.NET
Tue Mar 16 06:51:02 CST 2004

Hi Jan,

No, the Royal "WE", as in Can. Ent., require it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Spies" <spies at ZI.BIOLOGIE.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: Question about authorship of new names in zoology

> Dear Jan,
> please look up ICZN (1999) - the fourth edition of the
> nomenclature Code - Chapter 11 on authorship. The very first
> Article, 50.1 (see also the following Recommendation 50A),
> answers your question - even if the exposition is somewhat
> complicated in order to accommodate various kinds of special
> circumstances.
> And sorry, Robin, but there is nothing in the Code that
> requires a note "in the Introduction or Materials and
> Methods". It is perfectly sufficient to restrict taxonomic
> authorship to one or two of the coauthors in the heading
> above the new taxon description, or elsewhere. In the
> example you gave (bibliographic authorship: Jones, Smith and
> Thompson), a description heading like this:
>  > Genus species Jones et Smith, n. sp. <
> would suffice.
> All the Code requires is that it must be "clear from the
> contents" of the work who the author(s) of the taxon is
> (are). (Taxonomic authorship credit can even go to - or
> include - a person other than any of the coauthors of the
> work, see Code Article 50.1.1).
> Obviously, if various different authorship combinations are
> used in a single paper that establishes several different
> new taxa, the risk is a bit of confusion. Experience shows
> that readers often simply assume identity of bibliographic
> and taxonomic authorship, or quote from memory rather than
> rechecking the original publication. But such variations of
> taxonomic authorship within a work are not against the Code
> if the formal requirements are met.
> Best regards,
> --
> Martin Spies
> c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
> Germany

More information about the Taxacom mailing list