Nomenclator Zoologicus Volume 9 - errors in author

[Peter Stevens]

Umm, what happens when we combine plant and animal lists? Would we
have different abbreviations/contractions for the same person, and/or
the same abbreviatiom/contraction for different people?

P.

>From: "Paul Kirk" p.kirk at CABI.ORG :
>Both IPNI Authors and the subset for fungal authors include as many 'real'
>variants as are found in the literature and both human search interfaces
>will lead a user to the recommended form.
>
>***
>Clearly this is not true for IPNI for the category I mentioned. To make
>sure, I entered "Fr. Allem." and "H.B.K.", both of which are abbreviations
>that have been widely used in the literature and are still used in some
>publications.  Neither gives any result in the IPNI database and you won't
>find through IPNI what the currently recommended forms are.  In such cases
>you have to know, or do some reverse engineering.
>
>Integrating these (somehow) in the database, or running a separate list,
>would be a convenience to many users.
>* * *
>
>I say 'real' for we have not tried to invent all possible transliteration
>for e.g. some of the more complex Russian names. The published Brummitt &
>Powell included all the 'rules' and rationale - included at the authors of
>fungal names link is a subset of this information; the IPNI site does not
>have this (yet?).
>
>I would suggest that any zoologist who may be interested in developing a
>comparable list for animal authors would do well to read these 'rules' - it
>worked for 'botanists'. I reject the suggestion that authors names should be
>cited as published - standardization leads to clarity - and many authors
>were not in control of how there names were cited in publications, that
>depending on whether the type setter had the required bit of metal in his
>case; this is apparently still a problem for some publishers even with
>unicode available ;-)
>
>Paul
>
>***
>I certainly agree with the recommendation that zoologists take careful note
>of the book by Brummitt & Powell. Would be well worth it!
>
>Best, Paul