[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Donat Agosti agosti at amnh.org
Thu Sep 8 05:19:31 CDT 2011


Dear all

 

We would like to ask for some input.

 

Species-ID <http://species-id.net/wiki/>  and Plazi <http://plazi.org/>  are
maintaining and expanding a platform that offers access to published
semantically enhanced treatments of taxa (Plazi) and a Wiki (Species-ID)
that allows to modify and change those treatments, following the wiki
policies allowing everybody to become an editor. The integrity of the
original treatment is given by a link back to the original published version
on Plazi, the original citation and a version control.

 

The issue at hand is, that there are often numerous redescriptions of the
same taxon, inferring the same taxonomic concept or not, and that they have
to be labelled accordingly. But how is this done best?

 

For example Formica sanguinea Latreille 1798: Smith published a
redescription 1851 under the name Formica sanguinea. How would such a
treatment best be labelled?
http://species-id.net/wiki/Formica_sanguinea_%28Smith,_F._1851%29

As Formica sanguinea Latreille sensu Smith, 1851?

Formica sanguinea sensu Smith 1851?

Formica sanguinea sec. Smith 1851?

Formica sanguinea (Smith, 1851)?

 

In botany this becomes even more complicated since the listing of the
authors reflects also the history of nomenclatural changes.

 

In full language, this would read: This is a treatment of Formica sanguinea
published by Smith 1851 according to his understanding of Latreilles (1798)
connotation of Formica sanguinea. He does not assume any authorship of this
particular taxon, just adds some more information to this concept.

 

What is the preferable labelling of such a treatment?

 

Please let us know

 

All the best

 

Gregor Hagedorn and Donat Agosti

 

 




More information about the Taxacom mailing list