[Taxacom] zoological nomenclatural question

Doug Yanega dyanega at ucr.edu
Fri Mar 17 10:50:04 CDT 2017

On 3/17/17 8:17 AM, John Grehan wrote:
> 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.
The Code does not *mandate" the format for citation of date, it only 

In this case, the recommendation is actually quite explicit:

"22A.2.3. if wishing to cite both the actual and the imprint dates, 
should first cite the actual date, followed by the imprint date for 
information and enclosed in parentheses or other brackets and quotation 
marks; for a different use of parentheses for the dates of family-group 
replacement names maintained underArticle 40.2.1 
seeRecommendation 40A 

Examples./Ctenotus alacer/Storr, 1970 ("1969"), or/Ctenotus 
alacer/Storr, 1970 ["1969"], or/Ctenotus alacer/Storr, 1970 (imprint 
1969), or/Ctenotus alacer/Storr, 1970 (not 1969), was established in a 
work which, although published in 1970, carried an imprint date of 
1969;/Anomalopus truncatus/(Peters, 1876 ["1877"]) was established in a 
different genus from/Anomalopus/in a work which, although published in 
1876, carried an imprint date of 1877."

Therefore, it should be Palpifer Hampson, 1893 ("1892").


Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

More information about the Taxacom mailing list