Nomenclator Zoologicus Volume 9 - errors in author

[David Remsen]

I'm quite sure we already have both.  It's not a consequence of
whether such lists are combined.  What will happen has already happened.

On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Peter Stevens wrote:

> 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