[Taxacom] labeling redescriptions properly

Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 16:31:06 CDT 2011

I think the root of our request is that we have a conflict of citation
notations between nomenclature and the rest of science.

If we write a factual statement  "a is X (Smith 1979)" we would
recognize this as a Harvard style citation.

If we write "Formica sanguinea (Smith, 1851)" we have trouble reading
this as: "The facts stated by Smith 1851 about the organism named
Formica sanguinea" and interpret it in a nomenclatural fashion.

I largely agree with what Francisco writes, but how best do we cite if
the citation needs to be brief? What do we write if we do not mean
nomenclatural type, but citing facts reported in a specific
publication? What will be understood by most?

I agree that sensu, although literally correct, has a history of being
used only when necessary because the usage was in the wrong sense
(else nothing would be written). "Secundum" has therefore been
introduced as a replacement term.

::: by the way: WHO INTRODUCED "secundum"?

So is "secundum" the best form to cite information about a taxon?


More information about the Taxacom mailing list