[Taxacom] Problem with authors of taxa
l.raty at skynet.be
Sun Aug 13 04:54:56 CDT 2017
Art. 50 was modified in the 4th ed. of the Code, hence an interpretation
dating from a time when the 3rd ed. was in force is potentially problematic.
3rd. ed. (1985):
50(a) -- "If it is clear from the contents of the publication that only
one of joint authors, or some other person, is alone responsible both
for the name and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than
publication, then that person is the author of the name."
4th ed. (1999):
50.1. -- "If a work is by more than one person but it is clear from the
contents that only one of these is responsible for the name [...], then
that person is the author [...]."
50.1.1. -- "However, if it is clear from the contents that some person
other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name
[...] and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual
publication, then that other person is the author of the name [...]."
The current version treats cases where a name is declared authored by
one of the authors of the work (e.g., Jones in Jones & Smith)
differently than cases where the declared author is external (e.g.,
Jakes in Jones & Smith). In the first situation (50.1.), simple evidence
that the declared author was responsible *for the name* is enough to
restrict the authorship. (Citing the author's name after a new species
name does the job.) In the second situation (50.1.1.), you need evidence
that the external person was responsible for the name AND *for
satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication*
to make the external person the author. (Typically, this means evidence
that both the name and the description that made it available were
supplied by the external person.)
Back in 1994, the article that was in force did not make any such
distinction; it required evidence that the declared author was
"responsible both for the name and for satisfying the criteria of
availability other than publication" in both situations.
Thus it appears that, for cases like "Ribeiro & Buckup in Ribeiro,
Buckup, Gomes & Araujowas", Ng's interpretation was possible in 1994,
but is not any more...
Cheers, Laurent -
On 08/13/2017 09:17 AM, Stefano Taiti wrote:
> Dear all,
> I would like to point out a problem with the authors of new taxa when
> these are only part of the authors of the paper in which the new taxa
> are described.
> In a paper by Crandall & De Grave on "An updated classification of the
> freshwater crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidea) of the world, with a
> complete species list" published this week in the Journal of Crustacean
> Biology (on line) (see
> ) at p. 7 they write:
> "Ng (1994) laid down the foundation of author citation in decapod
> which since has been followed in all major compilations of decapod
> higher level taxonomy (De Grave et al., 2009), brachyuran crabs (Ng et al.,
> 2008), anomurans (Baba et al., 2008; McLaughlin et al., 2010a; 2010b),
> (Chan, 2010), and shrimps (De Grave & Fransen, 2011). This follows
> a strict interpretation of Article 50 (ICZN, 1999) in that merely citing an
> author's name after a new species name does not make it explicit enough
> that the description is solely by that/those person(s). Rather, it
> requires either
> a specific statement to that effect, or as is common in older
> literature, a clear
> line of evidence that parts of the article were written by, and can thus be
> formally attributed to a person(s) other than the author(s) of the article.
> For example, we attribute Cambarus setosus to Faxon & Garman in Garman,
> 1889, rather than just Faxon alone, as listed in Hobbs (1974b). This
> is not restricted to older literature as often thought, with for example,
> Ribeiro, Buckup, Gomes & Araujo (2016) describing "Parastacus fluviatilis
> Ribeiro & Buckup sp. nov." and "Parastacus caeruleodactylus Ribeiro &
> sp. nov." By following Ng (1994), the citation of these names becomes far
> less cumbersome, for example P. fluviatilis Ribeiro, Buckup, Gomes & Araujo
> (2016) rather than P. fluviatilis Ribeiro & Buckup in Ribeiro, Buckup,
> & Araujo (2016). We accept that this is not how Article 50 is uniformly
> across the zoological community and others may disagree. Because
> all other compilations in the taxonomy of decapods have followed this
> it seems logical to employ the same rule to bring the crayfish taxonomic
> literature in line with the prevailing viewpoint in decapod nomenclature."
> The interpretation of the Art. 50 of the ICZN by these authors seems to
> be peculiar since in the cited papers it is quite explicit (it is
> written!) that the authors of the new species are only some and not all
> the authors of the paper (see also Recommendation 50A).
> Since nowadays it is quite common to see examples like those reported
> above, I am wondering which is the right way to cite the authors of
> these species. If anyone can interpret Art. 50 as they prefer, it will
> be a real mess.
> Any opinion on this case will be appreciated.
> Stefano Taiti
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom