Nomenclator Zoologicus Volume 9 - errors in author [ Scanned for viruses ]

[Paul Kirk]

I think we move as far as possible to avoid this - different abbreviations/contractions for the same person can be decided by concensus (it is likely that most of the significant authors will have the same form - just a guess) and for new zoological authors to try and avoid using forms already in IPNI for different authors (as we try to do now for the names we apply to organisms).
 
Paul

________________________________

From: Taxacom Discussion List on behalf of David Remsen
Sent: Tue 28/03/2006 16:04
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Nomenclator Zoologicus Volume 9 - errors in author [ Scanned for viruses ]



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