[Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?

"Peter A. Schäfer" Peter.Schafer at univ-montp2.fr
Fri Sep 16 04:10:26 CDT 2011


Excuse me, but if I understand the issue, Amygdalus dulcis Mill. should 
be cited under Prunus as Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A.Webb.

and I guess the whole thing started just as a printing error with square 
brackets instead of round.

Peter A. Schäfer

On 16/09/2011 10:03, Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:<Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 2:09 AM
>
>> Sorry, mental hiccup there - orthography = spelling, correct
>> orthography = correct spelling
>
>> (before anyone corrects me)
>
> ***
> Well, not really. Obviously "orthography" is an English word,
> and as such has a certain meaning. I am not particularly certain
> what this meaning is (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/orthography)
> although by its etymology one would indeed expect it to deal
> with correct spelling.
>
> However, 1) in botanical nomenclature it carries its own meaning,
> which is restricted to the name itself. Probably it is a little wider
> than spelling (Art. 61.2 "orthographical variants are the various
> spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms ..."), depending
> on how one defines "spelling". Representing authors is called
> "author citation"; and Rec. 46A and 46B deal with how
> individual names of authors are to be represented.
>
> 2) You were dealing with the difference between
> Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb  versus
> Prunus dulcis Mill. ex D.A. Webb
> In a general sense, this is not a matter of spelling but of
> composition (what to include and what not to include).
>
> As a matter of general policy I have always found it to be
> advisable not to use specialized terminology, unless it is
> exactly fitting in that particular context. Otherwise,
> confusion will likely ensue. It would not have hurt you
> to say something like:
>
>      "Prunus dulcis Mill. ex D.A.Webb is the correct
>       way to write/represent this"
>
> instead, which would have avoided unnecessary use
> of terminology. Looks much safer to me.
>
> Paul
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
>> Sent: Friday, 16 September 2011 10:05 AM
>> To: dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Just one small point:
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>>> However, orthography means spelling of the name and refers
>>> to "Prunus dulcis", not to the author citation.
>>
>> Actually, orthography simply means "correct spelling" so could equally
>> apply to the authority component (authography maybe...)
>>
>> I was meaning in the broader sense correct / consistent representation,
>> not restricted to spelling alone, of the authority component, something
>> which is a bane to storage and comparison of taxonomic names in general
>> in information systems, so maybe orthography is not the best choice of
>> term in this context, but there is no reason to restrict the use of the
>> term to the scientific name portion, so far as I can see.
>>
>> Regards - Tony
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
>>> Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2011 5:24 PM
>>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?
>>>
>>> From:<Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:36 AM
>>> [...]
>>>>   Prunus dulcis Mill. ex D.A. Webb   - expressing that Webb's
>>>> work is the first valid publication of Miller's name, previously
>>>> not validly published.
>>>
>>> ***
>>> That would be correct, except that it is a little odd to describe
>> this
>>> as "Miller's name".
>>> * * *
>>>
>>>> On the other hand if the intention was simply to refer to a new
>>>> combination (change in genus placement) or change of rank,
>>>> Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb would be the correct
>>>> orthography (probably what is intended here).
>>>
>>> ***
>>> Just about. As Prunus dulcis is a combination based on
>>> Amygdalus dulcis Mill. (1768) that is indeed the intent here.
>>> However, orthography means spelling of the name and refers
>>> to "Prunus dulcis", not to the author citation.
>>>
>>> Prunus dulcis [Mill.] D.A.Webb would, under pre-1972 versions
>>> of the Code, refer to a name validly published by Webb inspired
>>> by a pre-1753 publication of Miller.
>>>
>>> Using this for a new combination is not to be discouraged, but is
>>> disallowed (Art. 49.1) and has been disallowed since the
>>> Cambridge Code (so, for some eighty years, or to put it
>>> differently, for as long as there have been validly published
>>> names, historically, that is, not nomenclaturally).
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
>





More information about the Taxacom mailing list