[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Sep 8 16:00:46 CDT 2011


I am on a ship with very poor internet access, so only short comments.

> > 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?

The definition for "sec" under GNUB is that established by Walter Berendsohn
in one of his early publications on modeling taxonomic data.  The reason
"sec" is visible under ZooBank is that ZooBank is a service that sits on top
of GNUB.  I would encourage people to refer to Walter's publications for why
"sec." was selected instead of "sensu". Probably check this one:

Berendsohn W.G. 1995. The concept of "potential taxa" in databases. Taxon
44: 207-212.

 I think the standard label should be "Formica sanguinea Latreille sec.
Smith 1851" on first use, and then perhaps truncated to "F. sanguinea sec
Smith 1851" on subsequent uses in the same context.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list