gread at actrix.gen.nz
Wed Sep 16 21:05:16 CDT 2009
Interesting. But to rain, or lightly drizzle on yr parade Kevin - reading
it through I'm confused on the taxonomists' petalodes/petaloides spellings
down the years, and also whether you've made a mistake yourselves on that
between boxes 3 & 4 in the Schulzer combination, or is it all part of the
demonstration? And why does EOL have its entry as petalodes when mostly
it's petaloides elsewhere, the former 'petalodes' possibly the original
author's orthography? Possibly it's crystal clear to any botanist but I
only have so much time :). Maybe a bit too finicky an example?
A zoologist would certainly not use the abbrev Bull. for Bulliard (more
potential for obfuscation), and would I hope have given the date,
Bulliard, 1780 for the basionym.
>>> On 9/17/2009 at 10:17 a.m., Kevin Richards
<RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz>
> To emphasise Rich's point, a gander at the poster we showed at
> It shows the name expansion idea, going from the "god-awful mess" (name
> strings), drilling down into the stable nomenclatural names, and back
> "synonym" concepts and other connected GNI name strings.
More information about the Taxacom