[Taxacom] Best usage - spp (no period) or spp.?

Geoffrey Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Mon Oct 8 17:39:13 CDT 2012


Hi Tony,

That usage seems to be as output formatting for a genus presentation,
rather than information on the number of local species within the genus (I
found a genus with only one member - spp was still used). I would use the
plain user friendly 'Arenicola species'.

If you are wedded to 'spp.', my personal preference is for the stop to be
retained as it makes clear that the string represents an abbreviation by
convention amongst some in-group.

Geoff

On Tue, October 9, 2012 8:53 am, Tony.Rees at csiro.au wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
>
> Regarding the use case for this stuff: for examples in CAAB stored data
> (as opposed to the CAAB interface) see:
>
> http://www.marine.csiro.au/caabsearch/caab_search.search_prepare?opt1=exact&opt2sci=starts&scitxt=&opt2com=starts&comtxt=&opt2tax=starts&taxtxt=&ctg=22&cSub=Search...&xTem=exclude&xAus=true&xCom=true&xAdj=true&xAnt=true&xOth=true&opt3=all
>
> (this link will probably split in the email system and require to be
> reassembled)
>
> giving a result (in this case for annelids - personalised to you of
> course) - commencing:
>
> 22 000000 .. Class Polychaeta - undifferentiated .. polychaete worms
> (group code)
> 22 001001 .. Abarenicola affinis .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 001002 .. Abarenicola clarki .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 001003 .. Abarenicola devia .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 001004 .. Abarenicola haswelli .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 001005 .. Arenicola bombayensis .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 001006 .. Arenicola caroledna .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 001007 .. Arenicola cristata .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 001008 .. Arenicola sudaustraliense .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 001901 .. Abarenicola spp ..   (group code)
> 22 001902 .. Arenicola spp ..   (group code)
> 22 001000 .. Arenicolidae - undifferentiated .. polychaete worms   (family
> code)
> 22 002001 .. Barantolla lepte .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 002002 .. Dasybranchus bipartinus .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 002003 .. Dasybranchus caducus .. [a polychaete worm]
> 22 002004 .. Dasybranchus lumbricoides .. [a polychaete worm]
>
> (and so on).
>
> This is the master list (with authorities omitted in this instance,
> however the latter are supplied via other means on demand) and these taxon
> lists and codes are then supplied to internal and external users elsewhere
> in our region for incorporation into their taxonomic databases and field
> data recording systems.
>
> At present the "spp" portions have had their trailing periods deleted but
> half or maybe more of me would prefer to see them there - so I was seeking
> relevant justification one way or the other.
>
> That's it in a nutshell.
>
>
> Cheers - Tony
> ________________________________________
> From: Geoffrey Read [gread at actrix.gen.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012 6:37 PM
> To: Stephen Thorpe
> Cc: gread at actrix.gen.nz; Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart);
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Best usage - spp (no period) or spp.?
>
>  Sheep farmers seem to cope ok.
>
> "I'm a sheeps farmer"?  Haven't seen it used lately. And how do you
> differentiate between sp. and spp. in speech, if say a blind person was
> trying to use the CAAB info read out by the computer?  How do we do say
> them? Same for both, right. Haven't heard anyone say the equivalent of
> Drosophila ess pee pee stop in a lecture. It's species everytime, plural
> or singular.  And we understand.
>
>  Not sure how Tony's system uses 'species' outside of sentences and his
> opening search page where he has 'spp' several times labelling various
> tick boxes. Those would look better if spelled out. There sure is enough
> room to do so.
>
> If it ever it matters at all elsewhere there's context and the use of
> appropriate preceeding articles.
>
> So there :-)
>
> Geoff
>
> On Mon, October 8, 2012 6:49 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>> the slight flaw in your argument, Geoff, is that spelling it out in
>> full,
>> the single and plural forms are the same, so it is actually *less
>> ambiguous"  to use the abbreviated forms ...
>>
>> ... and nobody got my pun about Tony's original post being *pointless*!
>> We
>> must be entering a dark period in Taxacom ... ahem!
>>
>> Stephen :)
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
>> To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
>> Cc: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012 6:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Best usage - spp (no period) or spp.?
>>
>> Abbreviations might have been necessary when programming the Apollo 11
>> module in 1969 and in early databases. But I think we've largely moved
>> on.
>> They can hamper understanding.
>>
>> Spell it out in glorious full, "species" 7 letters, versus spp. 4
>> characters.  And there are people out there who don't have a clue what a
>> spp. might be.
>>
>> Geoff
>>







More information about the Taxacom mailing list