[Taxacom] Citation

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Feb 6 15:26:16 CST 2017


Jan,
Trust me, by far the most sensible approach is to keep it simple and ignore redundant complexity like citations for names above the family group in zoology. As I said, nothing is gained by use of such citations. Certain people will insist on using such citations, probably because they think it "looks more scientific", but it is pointless and meaningless!
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 7/2/17, Jan Bosselaers <dochterland at telenet.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>, "Taxacom Mailinglist" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 7 February, 2017, 10:23 AM
 
 Stephen, Tony,
 
 I guess this fact explains why
 one sometimes also reads “Arachnida Lamarck, 1801”.
 Apparently nobody makes a fuss about this situation, but it
 is confusing indeed.
 
 Best,
 
 Jan
 
 > Op 6 feb. 2017, om 22:08 heeft Stephen
 Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 het volgende geschreven:
 > 
 > 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).
 > 
 > Stephen
 > 
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > 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
 > 
 > Hello Jan,
 > 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
 >
 Tony
 > Rees, New South Wales,
 Australiahttps://about.me/TonyRees
 > 
 > 
 > On 7 February 2017
 at
 > 07:24, Jan Bosselaers <dochterland at telenet.be>
 > wrote:
 > Thanks
 > Stephen, for pointing this out to me! Much
 appreciated.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Best wishes (the
 best wishes in Belgium - it’s true),
 >
 
 > 
 > 
 > Jan
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> 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;
 > Jan Bosselaers
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> Strictly
 > 
 >> speaking, there
 is no "citation" for that
 >
 taxon
 > 
 >> name,
 as names for classes are not regulated by any
 > code of
 > 
 >> nomenclature. Attribution of Arachnida
 to Cuvier 1812
 > is
 >
 
 >> meaningless and potentially rather
 misleading given
 > how
 > 
 >> taxonomic
 > 
 >>   concepts change over
 time.
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 >> Stephen
 > 
 >> 
 > 
 > 
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list