[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Sep 8 15:23:10 CDT 2011
although I am the person who raised the issue on Species-ID, and therefore not the person to give you a second opinion, nevertheless I would like to reiterate that on ZooBank (CC Rich Pyle) we consistently use sec, and this makes perfect sense to me, so in the example below, the correct citation would be:
Formica sanguinea sec Smith 1851
Note that of the choices below, the worst option is:
Formica sanguinea (Smith, 1851)
because it is highly misleading! As would be Formica sanguinea Smith, 1851
somewhere in your articles, the original author/date of the name, as cited by the "sec author", should be given, and also the correct original author/date, if different, but not in the page header
From: Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011 10:19 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly
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?
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
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom