[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Thu Sep 8 15:38:57 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

sec is not a term used in or defined by the ICZN Code, so what has it to
do in ZooBank, and under which definition is it used there?

Francisco


>
> 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
>
> Stephen
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> 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
>


Dr. F. Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536, Fax +49 551 395579
http://www.animalbase.org





More information about the Taxacom mailing list