[Taxacom] Citation

Geoff Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Mon Feb 6 20:21:04 CST 2017


Stephen,

Less strictly, there's tracking and acknowledging priority for any idea in
science.

It is true the Zoo code isn't interested in authorship of names above
family (but it does have a few articles to 'regulate' the form and scope
of those names, see art, 1.2.2).  However, we taxonomists are, or should
be, still interested in the history of those names, and may sometimes want
to indicate where they arose by means of citations (in the general sense
of science citations - a link to a publication) to attribute the various
concepts to authors, if the situation requires it.

The concept name might even be pre-Linnaean, but it's still of interest to
some of us to know where it arose, and go and have a look at the context -
this might have been the purpose of the original question.  Linnaeus
himself was just building on existing knowledge and name usages.  A lot of
his content he lifted from others - usually acknowledged.

Geoff

On Tue, February 7, 2017 10:26 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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
>  >
>  >>
>  >
>  >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
>


--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz



More information about the Taxacom mailing list