stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Feb 6 15:08:26 CST 2017
It causes problems and confusion for no gain.
"Just like a name at any regulated rank, the citation indicates who erected the name, ..."
Actually, no! The citation indicates who first erected the name in a Code compliant way, but if it is a non-regulated name, then there is no such thing as Code compliance for that name! So, we get a pointless situation whereby names above family-group (in zoology) are just cited, for no particular reason, to whoever first published the name in more or less the way it is currently used, whereas, for regulated names, the citation indicates who first erected the name in a Code compliant way, and this is only really important because of the Principle of Priority (which does not apply to unregulated names).
On Tue, 7/2/17, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
To: "Jan Bosselaers" <dochterland at telenet.be>
Cc: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Taxacom Mailinglist" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 7 February, 2017, 10:00 AM
Stephen et al.,
I do not
have a problem with citing authors for ranks above family,
as per the example at http://www.eu-nomen.eu/portal/taxon.php?GUID=urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1300
. Although the zoological Code does not regulate these, it
does not therefore mean they cannot be used in this manner,
if zoologists so desire. Just like a name at any regulated
rank, the citation indicates who erected the name, not
necessarily its current circumscription.
Best regards - Tony
Rees, New South Wales, Australiahttps://about.me/TonyRees
On 7 February 2017 at
07:24, Jan Bosselaers <dochterland at telenet.be>
Stephen, for pointing this out to me! Much appreciated.
Best wishes (the best wishes in Belgium - it’s true),
> From: Taxacom
> <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.
ku.edu> on behalf of
> Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Sent: 06 February 2017 19:56
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
> speaking, there is no "citation" for that
> name, as names for classes are not regulated by any
> nomenclature. Attribution of Arachnida to Cuvier 1812
> meaningless and potentially rather misleading given
> concepts change over time.
More information about the Taxacom