[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Richard Petit r.e.petit at att.net
Thu Sep 8 16:14:28 CDT 2011


Stephen:

While the ICZN Code does state that it regulates only the names of taxa 
(Art. 1.2.2), by the time the authors of the Code got to Articles 50 and 
51they had forgotten about that!

dick p.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: "Francisco Welter-Schultes" <fwelter at gwdg.de>; 
<deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: "TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly


I'll let Rich answer that fully, but since the author/date is optional, the 
phrase 'sec author/date' can be considered *not* to be part of the name, and 
so we are free to use whatever jargon we like (as the Code does not regulate 
terminology outside of scientific names!)


From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Cc: Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>; "TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU" 
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly


> 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
_______________________________________________

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