[Taxacom] Citing taxonomical works (was: decline and fall of taxonomy)

dipteryx at freeler.nl dipteryx at freeler.nl
Thu Jun 18 11:51:33 CDT 2009

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Frederick W Schueler
Verzonden: do 18-6-2009 18:17
* I know this is the argument that's used for citing authors, but what 
I'm asking is how citing the original author (or, in botany, a potpourri 
of authors of epithets) is better than citing a recent revisor whose 
species concept is being used by the author? Even if one gave the 
specimen number of the type specimen (a much more direct tie to the 
type), what one is really referencing in using a name is the species 
concept you, as an author, endorse at the time of writing.

Any set of names from a recent revisor will be free from homonyms, and 
will include synonymies and lots of other user-friendly features that 
won't be present in an original description (which isn't adequately 
cited in ordinary practice).

Yes, this makes sense. Referring to a particular revision includes 
everything you might want. The revisor is likely to have cited both 
the original author and the type. 

Citing the author of the name is pretty much required in nomenclatural
publications, and in taxonomic revisions, but is rather superfluous 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list