[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Paul Kirk p.kirk at cabi.org
Thu Sep 8 15:57:09 CDT 2011


Jody,

I think you mix taxonomy and nomenclature in you reply. In botany the application of names is determined by types - the diagnosis is required for valid publication but it's the type which is important. The Code says the type may not be the most typical specimen so redescriptions are the 'bread and butter' of taxonomy and taxon circumscriptions/concepts.

In haste,

Paul
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] on behalf of jody at plantapalm.com [jody at plantapalm.com]
Sent: 08 September 2011 21:49
To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

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


_______________________________________________

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
************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.

Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.

CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.

**************************************************************************







More information about the Taxacom mailing list