[Taxacom] Authorship of corrected original spellings in Botany

Wolfgang Lorenz faunaplan at googlemail.com
Tue Sep 20 03:26:56 CDT 2011


Hi Tony,

it's an important question for names databases, I'd say, but I fear there
are yet again a lot of differences between the botanic and the zoological
Codes.
As for zoological names, we have many available names that were established
as "incorrect original spellings". No additional nomenclatural act, no
change in author and date is involved in correcting these spellings, -
simply they are deemed to be established in Code-compliant spelling. In
other words, some of those names exist "invisibly" as available names even
before you can find any usage of the correct spelling.
That's why, in my own database, I'm storing taxonomic names in two separate
data fields:
1. The name as actually spelled in the first usage instance (=original
publication), irrespective of correct or incorrect spelling.
2. The correct name as deemed to be/ should be according to
Code-requirements

Best wishes,
Wolfgang

--------------------------------------

Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany

2011/9/20 Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:59 AM
> > 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?
>
> ***
> Yes, your general assumption is correct (Art. 45.2, compare also
> Art. 18.4, 19.6, 24.4, 32.7, 46.7, 47.1 and 50.1): it is the author
> who validly published the name who must be cited.
>
> I don't know any details of the case, although it is obvious that the
> pair is Antochorthus / Anthochortus and that the IK lists both
> (with a "use Anthochortus" note). So presumably correct usage is
> Anthochortus Nees ('Antochortus').
>
> 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
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list