[Taxacom] Emendation / species splitting

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: "Anthony Pigott" <Anthony.Pigott at btinternet.com>
> Dear All

> Excuse my ignorance but could anyone please confirm or otherwise my
> understanding of how best to represent the outcome of the following:

> (1) A plant taxon  is named as the species Dus aus by Snooks with
> subspecies aus, bus and cus. Dus bus is accepted as a synonym of the
> species Dus aus but it is based on a different type.

> (2) A paper is subsequently published by Buggins who declares that the
> three original subspecies are each good species and should be called Dus
> aus,  Dus bus and Dus cus.

> (3) A further paper is published by Snooks who now accepts that there are
> three species.

> The taxon Dus aus Snooks [sensu Snooks(1)] is very different to Dus aus
> Snooks [sensu Buggins and sensu Snooks(3)].

> Is the best (right?) way to distinguish them referring to one as Dus aus
> Snooks and Dus aus Snooks emend. Buggins?

***
I would say this is a matter of style, and thus dependent on the style of
the publication you are writing for.
* D-us a-us sensu Buggins
* D-us a-us Snooks sensu Buggins (1999) and Snooks (2003).
* D-us a-us Snooks emend. Buggins
* D-us a-us as circumscribed by Buggins
all look acceptable to me, and probably there are many more ways to 
express this. It mostly depends on the target readership.

Paul


.