[Taxacom] Questions on Taxonomic Code of Practice

JF Mate aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
Wed Jan 8 15:43:52 CST 2014

Rafaël wrote:
"Fortunately this practice will soon disappear when we stop citing the
author of a name and move to citing the authority of the taxonomic
concept. Currently we all cite the author who first validated the
name. This however has very little value (guides you to the type and
prevents confusion with homonyms) and merely reflects the nomenclature
which others have mentioned is not strictly science. So we are trying
to move to citing the authors whose taxonomic species concept we
follow. This would be much more valuable and reflect the taxonomic
opinion we follow. Currently nomenclators are providing DOI's
(personally I don't see how that is of any great value). Hopefully
soon taxonomic publications and databases will provide DOI's to taxon
concepts which would be truly valuable and refer back to the science."


Paul wrote:
"* What is cited in an author citation are the authors
involved (in one way or another) in publishing the name
(not necessarily the authors of the name). But, Rafaël
Govaerts is quite right that often it would be more useful
to cite the authority of the circumscription that is being used."

I am confused. Aren´t we already doing this when we say Aus bus (L.
1758) sensu XYZ (2013)? And if so, isn´t it preferable to include both
the original author´s reference (for the reasons stated by Stephen) as
well as the authority of the circumscription? Seems silly (dare I say
lazy) not to include both for the sake of a few bytes of data.

And on a distantly related, tangential topic. Why is it that a
species´ description requires (or at least we expect) a minimum amount
of data and adherence to protocol whereas synonimisation is a more lax



More information about the Taxacom mailing list