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

[Dipteryx]

Let's try this again:

In botanical usage when Smith is the author of the protologue it is
established practice to write:
Xxxxxx xxxxx Smith in Jones
Xxxxxx xxxxx Smith emend. Jones
Xxxxxx xxxxx Smith sensu Jones
Xxxxxx xxxxx Jones ex Smith

The form including "ex" is assymmetrical compared to the rest. When taking
into account that "ex" refers to the word following it and that "ex" denotes
an origin it becomes downright illogical (to quote Stearn's Botanical Latin:
"ex" = "from, out of, away from, after, through, by reason of").

[ Supplementary note: "emend." is recognised by the ICBN (in Rec 47A) and
not just "in" and "ex" as Thomas Lammers hinted ]

+ + +

In zoological usage (fide Richard Pyle) established form is

Xxxxxx xxxxx Smith (ex Jones)

which is logical since it makes sense as Latin. It also would fit in nicely
with the first three of the abovementioned forms in botanical usage.

+ + +

Apparently existing botanical usage is widely felt to be illogical.
Otherwise it is hard to explain the reactions yesterday with several
esteemed taxonomists who, at the mere mention of the topic and completely
disregarding the question, automatically begin to expound the form of
established botanical usage (even quoting from the Code). These strong
defensive reactions suggest that this comes up frequently and that it is
widely felt to be strange.

Obviously this use of "ex" is established botanical practice, firmly
established in the Code and, for better or worse, will be with us for
all eternity.

The fact that a strange looking form is entrenched in established
botanical usage suggests that there is an interesting historical reason for
it. So I repeat the question: does anyone know how this came to happen?

Best, Paul van Rijckevorsel

Dipteryx
Postbus 4047
NL-3502 HA  Utrecht

----- Original Message -----
From: Dipteryx <dipteryx at FREELER.NL>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:27 AM


 This raises another question. The zoological usage of "ex" as "derived
from" or "credited to" is what one would expect from the Latin "ex". The
botanical usage "published by" is anti-intuitive, the more so since "Smith
in Jones" is shortened to "Smith" while "Smith ex Jones" is shortened to
Jones.

 I have long wondered what is the background of this botanical usage and how
it came to be. Does anybody know?

Best, Paul van Rijckevorsel

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG>
>
Wrong again!  I just confirmed that in zoological contexts, the case of
"Smith (ex Jones)" means that the *name* was credited to Jones, but the
description (including original examination of specimens, etc.) was provided
by Smith.
>