Who needs author names? (was Re: abbreviations for author names)
Faunaplan at AOL.COM
Faunaplan at AOL.COM
Sun Mar 12 14:00:57 CST 2006
Richard H. Zander cited my words and recommended:
>"As soon as many or all taxonomists agree on/ recommend the use of one
valid name for that given species, then we can use that name as a GLOBALLY
Dream on. <
LOL - yes, stripped from it's context, it looks like a ridiculous dream.
However, the Code regulates exactly how names are to be formed and spelled,
but it doesn't regulate authors' names. So when we need taxonomic names
functioning as unique identifiers, we need the Code-compliant valid name strings
without authors' names.
Maybe examples can illustrate the context better than my poor wording:
E.g., taken from a database of names used in literature, viewed from the
perspective of "my" valid names:
valid name | name as used | in publication | page
Styphlomerus fusciceps | Brachinus fusciceps Schm.Goeb. | ANDREWES, H.E.
1923c | 43
Styphlomerus fusciceps | Styphlomerus bicolor Boh. | ANDREWES, H.E. 1924c |
Styphlomerus fusciceps | Styphlomerus fusciceps SCHM.-GOEB. | ANDREWES, H.E.
1947a | 11
Styphlomerus fusciceps | Styphlomerus brunneiventris Louw. | LOUWERENS, C.J.
1962 | 147
Or take this:
Names provided by uBio's name server, again viewed from the perspective of
"my" valid names:
valid name | name as used | in online source
Pterostichus adstrictus | Bothriopterus adstrictus Eschscholtz, 1823 | uBio
Pterostichus adstrictus | Pterostichus adstrictus Eschscholtz, 1823 | uBio
Pterostichus adstrictus | Bothriopterus luczoti Dejean, 1828 | uBio name
Pterostichus adstrictus | Bothriopterus orinomus Kirby, 1837 | uBio name
Pterostichus adstrictus | Bothriopterus sexpunctatus Mannerheim | uBio name
Pterostichus adstrictus | Bothriopterus vitreus Dejean, 1828 | uBio name
UBio's name server has these names flagged as "species", each with it's own
numeric code added. But uBio doesn't inform you that these are all synonyms of
one widespread holartic ground beetle known as Pterostichus adstrictus. And if
they did, they had to select either one (valid) name or some kind of code in
order to tie them together, isn't it?
So why not work out a list of valid names which enables us to view all uses
of names incl. synonyms from one perspective? Individual authors can continue
using their preferred nomenclature (and it's recommendable to cite author &
date) but we can view and access their work from a common standardized
Of course, such a 'list for all' has to be updated and reviewed at a regular
- say yearly - basis. However, can the bioinformatics community do this alone?
Eventually by creating new machine-only-readable unique identifiers???
Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany
More information about the Taxacom