[Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for Animals

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 17 17:03:36 CDT 2015


Hi Tony,
Well, that was the short version of my argument. Clearly, I need to elaborate. Firstly, note that the principle of priority does not apply to unregulated names. Inevitably, people think that it does apply whenever they see authors and dates cited, which causes confusion. You claim that there is "value" in associating such names with author/date, but there is also a big price to be paid in terms of (1) pointless complexity (i.e. tracking details of old literature for no real benefit), (2) possibility for confusion and (3) inconsistency with Code regulated names. By (3), I refer to the fact that author/date for unregulated names means one thing (i.e. date first published), but means something entirely different for regulated names (i.e. date first published in a Code compliant way). If you want to disambiguate "homonyms" in unregulated names, then I suggest that you do so by way of parent taxa and/or rank, e.g. X (Animalia, order) vs. X (Plantae, phylum).
Cheers, Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 18/10/15, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for Animals
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Mary Barkworth" <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>, "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Sunday, 18 October, 2015, 10:54 AM
 
 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, Australiahttps://about.me/TonyRees
 
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list