[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

jody at plantapalm.com jody at plantapalm.com
Thu Sep 8 15:49:12 CDT 2011


Gregor & Donat,

Having published such a "redescription" myself, I find this topic of
interest. However, I do have a point of clarification (or perhaps a
question). I was informed by an experienced botanist prior to publishing
my paper that such works would best be called emended descriptions
because there can only ever be one valid formal description of any given
taxon in botany, and the first validly published description takes
precedence over all that succeed it; hence, there can never be a
"redescription" of a botanical taxon. When citing a botanical name, the
author of the original decription is listed and no other authors are
ever added to the citation (assuming the circumscription of the taxon
remains the same). I would be interested in hearing any thoughts on this
issue and/or whether the rules differ between plants and other groups.

Thanks,
Jody


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly
From: Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
Date: Thu, September 08, 2011 3:19 am
To: <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>

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





More information about the Taxacom mailing list