[Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for Animals

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 17 16:54:09 CDT 2015


Hi Stephen,

That may be your view and I see the argument you make for it. Another view
would be that even though the Code does not govern names at higher rank
than family-group, there is value in associating the names of newly erected
higher taxa (e.g. when cited as ordo novum, classis novum, etc.) with the
author and year proposed, for future reference. How far back you then take
this historically is a matter of personal preference (just in my opinion of
course). Probably "accepted usage" trumps what the Code has to say in these
cases (and as you point out, the Code says nothing).

Regards - Tony

On 18 October 2015 at 08:31, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> Actually, in zoology, names above superfamily do not have authors or
> dates, though this fact is widely misunderstood. I think about it this way:
> the author and date of a name (superfamily down to subspecies) is not
> necessarily the date that the name was first published (publication it was
> first published in). Rather, it is the date that it was first published in
> a Code compliant way. Since the Code is silent on names above superfamily,
> there is no such thing as Code compliance for these names. Therefore there
> is no meaningful author/date.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 18/10/15, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for Animals
>  To: "Mary Barkworth" <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
>  Cc: "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  Received: Sunday, 18 October, 2015, 9:09 AM
>
>  Hi Mary,
>
>  I don't think anyone
>  replied to one of your original questions regarding
>  citing authorship for higher ranks: yes, these
>  also have authors (and
>  years), although many
>  publications neglect to include them. For example:
>
>  (Order) Primates Linnaeus,
>  1758
>  (Family) Hominidae Gray, 1825
>
>  One benefit of this is that it
>  permits the discrimination of family-level
>  homonyms, of which some exist. Another is that
>  it provides a pointer to the
>  relevant
>  literature in which the names were erected. A third is that
>  it
>  provides some insight into the historical
>  sequence of the taxonomy of the
>  group or
>  name in question (recent or long-established, etc.)
>
>  So I would suggest that even
>  where these are absent or unknown in the
>  source you are using, you leave a slot for them
>  in your database in case
>  you want to
>  populate these at some time.
>
>  Hope this helps,
>
>  Best regards - Tony
>
>
>
>  On 18 October
>  2015 at 05:01, Mary Barkworth <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
>  wrote:
>
>  > Thank you
>  everyone who replied. I feel confident that I can now
>  provide
>  > the correct information (so
>  long as ITIS is correct) to the database I am
>  > developing. I appreciate the help.
>  >
>  > Mary
>  >
>  > -----Original
>  Message-----
>  > From: Robin Leech
>  [mailto:releech at telus.net]
>  > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 11:29
>  AM
>  > To: 'Adam Cotton' <adamcot at cscoms.com>;
>  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
>  Mary
>  > Barkworth <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
>  > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors
>  for Animals
>  >
>  > Hi
>  Mary,
>  > Well, zoologists have sub
>  species, but also subgenera.
>  > So, in
>  theorgy you could have Genus, subgenus, species, subspecies
>  = 4.
>  > It all depends on how much work
>  has been done in a group.
>  > I think birds
>  and beetles may have the most subspecific and subgeneric
>  > entries.
>  > Robin
>  >
>  > -----Original
>  Message-----
>  > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>  On Behalf Of
>  > Adam Cotton
>  > Sent: October-17-15 10:50 AM
>  > To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  > Subject: [Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for
>  Animals
>  >
>  > -----
>  Original Message -----
>  > From: "Mary
>  Barkworth" <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
>  > To: <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 9:18
>  PM
>  > Subject: [Taxacom] Citing Authors
>  for Animals
>  > >
>  >
>  Also, do zoologists now have only one infraspecific rank,
>  subspecies? If
>  > not, what does one do
>  when one has a trinomial with no indication of what
>  > the lowest rank is supposed to be?
>  > >
>  > > Mary
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  > Mary,
>  >
>  > Yes, there is only
>  one infraspecific rank recognised by the ICZN Code, the
>  > subspecies.
>  >
>  > If you have a trinomial you should assume
>  that it is "Genus species
>  >
>  subspecies", unless the middle name is in () and has a
>  capital first letter
>  > in which case it
>  is "Genus (Subgenus) species".
>  >
>  > Adam.
>  >
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  > Taxacom Mailing List
>  >
>  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
>  searched at:
>  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>  >
>  > Celebrating 28 years
>  of Taxacom in 2015.
>  >
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  > Taxacom Mailing List
>  >
>  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
>  searched at:
>  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>  >
>  > Celebrating 28 years
>  of Taxacom in 2015.
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>  https://about.me/TonyRees
>  _______________________________________________
>  Taxacom Mailing List
>  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
>  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>  Celebrating 28 years of
>  Taxacom in 2015.
>
>


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



More information about the Taxacom mailing list