A zoologist asks: botanical names practice

[Mary Barkworth]

The request seems to reflect a common unfounded assumption that
displaying author names and publication information means that the work
is more scientific. If it were me, I would grumble a lot, do it, cross
the journal off the list of those I submit to, and send the editor the
following excerpt from the current version of the International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature

"Among the non-mandatory (explanatory or advisory) matter added or
modified at St Louis, let us point out the reworded Art. 46.1, which
downgrades author citation after scientific names, from a necessary
condition for a name to be "accurate and complete" to a mere complement
that "may be desirable", *particularly in taxonomic and nomenclatural
publications* [emphasis added]. Authors and editors should be made aware
of this change, as past editorial policy has sometimes enforced the
uncritical addition of author citations in non-taxonomic papers, where
they are of little use." (see
http://www.bgbm.org/IAPT/Nomenclature/Code/SaintLouis/0002Preface.htm)

I know of no good reason for citing the date of publication. I do see a
good reason to state what references you used for identifying the plants
(even if you just knew the plants you could cite some work that others
less knowledgeable could use.

Mary