"ex" in authorship was: "fide" in authorship

[Jacques Melot]

  Le 27/06/02, à 10:26 +0200, nous recevions de SKÁLA Zdenek :

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dipteryx [mailto:dipteryx at FREELER.NL]
>>I have long wondered what is the background of this botanical usage and how
>>it came to be. Does anybody know?
>
>"in":
>an author A published a new species Planta virida in a key to local
>flora which is as a whole edited by an author B. Hence the citation
>is Planta virida A in B which means that the author of the name is A
>but the author of the publication is B.



    "in", fait désormais partie de la citation bibliographique et
devrait être séparé, pour des raisons typographiques et de clarté, du
nom par une virgule (,). Pour cette raison, "in" n'est pas à mettre
sur le même plan que "ex".

    Cf. art. 46, note 1:

(Art. 46) Note 1. When authorship of a name differs from authorship
of the publication in which it was validly published, both are
sometimes cited, connected by the word "in". In such a case, "in" and
what follows are part of a bibliographic citation and are better
omitted unless the place of publication is being cited.

    Par exemple:

Agaricus sanguineus Wulfen, in Jacquin, Collect., II (1), p. 107 (1788).


    Ne pas oublier qu'au sens strict du Code, le nom est seulement
"Agaricus sanguineus". "Wulfen" est la citation d'auteurs facultative
- art. 46.1 Saint Louis, non versions précédentes! (cf. ci-dessous) -
et "Jacquin, Collect., II (1), p. 107 (1788) est une citation
bibliographique abrégée, laquelle est le plus souvent omise et,
encore une fois, n'appartient pas au nom.


[Saint Louis]
46.1. In publications, particularly those dealing with taxonomy and
nomenclature, IT MAY BE DESIRABLE, even when no bibliographic
reference to the protologue is made, to cite the author(s) of the
name concerned (see Art. 6 Note 1; see also Art. 22.1 and 26.1). In
so doing, the following rules are to be followed.

[Avant Saint Louis, Tokyo, etc.]
46.1. For the indication of the name of a taxon to be accurate and
complete, and in order that the date may be readily verified, IT IS
NECESSARY to cite the name of the author(s) who validly published the
name concerned unless the provisions for autonyms apply (Art. 22.1
and 26.1).




>"ex":
>an author A published a new species Planta virida in an article but
>ascribed this name to another author (who e.g. described this
>species earlier as new invalidly in the herbarium sheets etc.).
>Hence, in the article the new name appears as Planta virida B but
>the real author of the desription/name is A. So the citation is
>Planta virida B ex A which means that the real author is A but the
>author name appearing in the original publication is B.



    Pourquoi faire plus compliqué que dans le Code ?

    Jacques Melot



>  >From this follow the shortening rules: the real author name - A in
>both cases - should be always retained.
>
>Best!
>Zdenek Skala