[Taxacom] zoological nomenclatural question

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Mar 17 10:17:14 CDT 2017

Dear colleagues,

I would be grateful for clarification of the correct formatting for
reference within a text of a work for which the actual publication was
later than the stated date. I have reviewed the code but still not quite
sure of the correct format.

In reference to the following publication:

Hampson, G.F. [1893] (1892). The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon
and Burma. Moths, Vol. 1. Taylor and Francis, London, 527pp.

The genus Palpifer (Lepidoptera) was established in this publication and is
usually presented by the literature (such as a taxonomic catalog) as:

Palpifer Hampson, [1893]

So when first mentioning the genus in a text, am I correct to understand
that it is stated the same way, as Palpifer Hampson, [1893] or should it be
Hampson [1893] without the coma?

Next, I refer to content in that publication in the following way – “The
stem boring habit of Indian Endoclita was perhaps first recorded by Hampson
[1893].” Again, is this correct according to ICZN rules?

And for “The only reference to larval biology is a brief note by Hampson
[1893]: 317…” for a page reference, or should it be “Hampson [1893: 317]”?
Or something different?

I hope this is a straightforward question without ambiguities. Even after
reading the ICZN Article 22 I found I was not completely sure of the
correct application.


John Grehan

More information about the Taxacom mailing list