[Taxacom] Formation of family names e.g. Diplogasteridae vs. Diplogastridae in Nematoda (and similar)

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 16:14:12 CST 2015


OK, I will try to re-analyse the results using that criterion... also I
realised that I should be using a time window close to 2000 (e.g.
1990-2000), not all papers published prior to that cutoff point...

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees

On 3 November 2015 at 09:09, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

> On 11/2/15 1:57 PM, Tony Rees wrote:
>
> Doug and Stephen, I did a quick check using Google Scholar and came up
> with the following result:
>
> 1850-2000 papers: Diplogasteridae 398, Diplogastridae 62
>
> 2001-2015 papers (out of scope for ICZN "prevailing usage" consideration): Diplogasteridae
> 459, Diplogastridae 427
>
> Thus although it appears that usage of the form "Diplogastridae" has been
> gaining ground, this is incorrect so far as the Code is concerned and the
> version "Diplogasteridae" is the Code-sanctioned one.
>
> The Code specifies that what one counts is authors, not papers. Googling
> is not the best way to assess this metric, therefore. Think about it and
> you'll see the logic: one author could flood the literature with dozens of
> papers using the spelling they personally prefer, and thereby "win" if all
> the other experts published only one paper apiece.
>
> Peace,
>
> --
> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list