[Taxacom] globalnames?

Kevin Richards RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz
Thu Sep 17 18:02:58 CDT 2009

Yes, the 4th box had an error - graphics department slip up!
But the example is not important, the mechanisms for going from "big bad world" -> GNI -> GNUB -> GNI -> back to "big bad world" was what we were trying to demonstrate!


-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Read [mailto:gread at actrix.gen.nz]
Sent: Friday, 18 September 2009 11:02 a.m.
To: Kevin Richards
Cc: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] globalnames?

Well I'm sorry but now I'm back to still wondering if the poster pdf 4th
box 'petalodes' names are poster author mistakes.  And even if intended
it's a difficult example for the non-initiated to follow.

On author abbreviations (botanical or zoological) - they're a relic from
ancient times. Why on earth would anyone perpetuate their use? Not
untutored user friendly. So Bull with a full stop equals Bulliard
is never confusable for Bull without a full stop equals just Bull? I don't
think so.

Off topic but similarly absurd is the continuation of the preoccupation of
some editors that one should never judiciously spell out genus names, even
when there's several different genera being discussed in a para. And a
paper I saw recently gave the genus involved more or less as an aside once
in the intro - you had to really hunt to find it - then no more in the
rest of the text - just the one letter representation. Crazy, and


On Fri, September 18, 2009 9:50 am, Kevin Richards wrote:
> on behalf of Paul Kirk...

> Simple explanation ... for which see:
> http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=490345
> Names, in 'botanical' nomenclature, applied to fungi can be Sanctioned
> (Art. 13.1d -
> http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0017Ch2Sec4a013.htm)
> and although no stated explicitly, the orthography of sanctioned names is
> accepted as correct in cases where it differs from that in the protologue
> where the name was validly published, assuming that it is not in conflict
> with Art. 60
> (http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0065Ch7OaGoNSec1a60.htm).
> In this case both petalodes and petaloides are acceptable alternatives so
> the original orthography of Bulliard is 'overturned' by that adopted by
> Fries.
> And to inform a previous post which referred to the use of 'Bull.' as
> being inadvisable ... in 'botany' we have standardized 'recommended' forms
> for 'plant name authors' which unambiguously refer to a single person and
> which are increasingly used in author citation - to everyones benefit. We
> have our house in order in this respect - perhaps the zoologists may wish
> to follow suit? ... ;-)

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

More information about the Taxacom mailing list