[Taxacom] Authorship of corrected original spellings in Botany

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Tue Sep 20 01:59:49 CDT 2011


Dear all,

I have come across a few examples recently of discrepancies in cited authorship for botanical names which have been orthographically corrected / amended from their original. For example the genus Anthocortus in Restionaceae was apparently originally erected with that spelling by C.G.D. Nees in 1836, and is listed thus in (for example) Index Nominum Genericorum (where, in this instance, it is also listed as a "current name"), however most other sources prefer the orthographic variant Anthochortus. In Index Kewensis and TROPICOS this "th" spelling is attributed to Endlicher, also in 1836 as it happens (different work), however in GRIN taxonomy and in Mabberley the same spelling is ascribed to Nees, which I would in general have thought was the correct assertion since it is corrected from the original, but should not change its authorship; a full citation would presumably be Anthochortus Nees (as "Anthocortus") . Who is right?

I only mention this because it I have also come upon it in some other examples and was wondering if there is a straightforward course to follow in similar cases. Any advice appreciated.

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees
Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
GPO Box 1538,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
Personal info: http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566
 






More information about the Taxacom mailing list