[Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Francisco,

I don't know what you mean by "inaccurate", but many of us have been
reasonably consistent (at least in recent years) in what we mean by the term
"name-string" in the context of scientific names.  I don't know that we use
the full term "scientific name string"; but if one were to use such a term
in the context of biodiversity informatics, I would feel confident that in
interpreting it at "a text-string purported to represent a scientific name".

We started using the term "name-string" several years ago precisely to
distinguish what you define below as a "scientific name" from "a text-string
purported to represent a scientific name".  The main problem is that people
would simply use the term "name" or "scientific name" without quailfying
what they meant, and as such led to much confusion and misunderstanding.  In
my experience, conversations about how to manage taxonomic information
(e.g., within the context of GNA) has been markedly improved by the
relatively broad adoption and consistent usage of the term "name-string",
which is shorter to type than "a text-string purported to represent a
scientific name".

As for the ICZN Code, here are some useful definitions from the glossary:

name, n.
    (1) (general) A word, or ordered sequence of words, conventionally used
to denote and identify a particular entity (e.g. a person, place, object,
concept). (2) Equivalent to scientific name (q.v.). (3) An element of the
name of a species-group taxon: see generic name, subgeneric name, specific
name, subspecific name.

scientific name
    Of a taxon: a name that conforms to Article 1, as opposed to a
vernacular name. The scientific name of a taxon at any rank above the
species group consists of one name; that of a species, two names (a
binomen); and that of a subspecies, three names (a trinomen) [Arts. 4 and
5]. A scientific name is not necessarily available.

A couple of points are worth noting here:

1) There are actually no fewer than *FORTY ONE* definitions for the word
"name" qualified in one way or another within the glossary of the ICZN Code.
This illustrates the confusion that can result when people talk about
"names" without qualifying what they specifically mean.  This ambiguity
alone has probably cost us at least a year or more in sorting out systems
for managing taxonomic information.

2) In both of the definitions above (#3 of "name", and the qualifcation of
binomial and trinomial names of "scientific name"), the ICZN Code makes it
clear that the term "name" or "scientific name" applies to the individual
element of a compound name.  In other words, "Homo sapiens" is two names:
one genus-group name and one species-group name (the latter often referred
to as an "epithet").  This is in stark contrast to how a botanist defines
the word "scientific name", in that "Homo sapiens" is *one* name.  I don't
know which of these senses of "name" the bacteriological community follows.

The discrepancy between botanincal tradition and zoological tradition has
likewise created a great deal of confusion when trying to discuss taxonomic
information management systems.  The introduction of qualified terms such as
"name-string" and "name element" (among others) has helped to facilitate
less ambiguous communication in this regard.

When we were developing the "Linnean Core" (later embedded within TCS), we
defined the term "name-string" in accordance with your prefrence to exclude
the authorship information (See:
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/LinneanCoreDefinitions).  We
established the term "Name-string with authorship" to refer to the complete
string with authorship information.  However, as we began developing the
Global Names Index, it was clear that we were mostly discussing text strings
that (potentially) included authorship information as well, and for better
or for worse, we began using the short-hand term "name-string" to refer to
the text string that includes the authorship information.

I suppose it's not too late for the GNA/GNI community to return to the terms
as defined in the LinneanCore definitions, and perhaps it would avoid
confusion if we did so.  Do the GNA developers on this list have an opinion
either way?

Aloha,
Rich

P.S. What "given web page" were you referring to at the end of your post?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:39 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string
> 
> A "string" is a technical term used in electronic 
> environments describing a combination containing letters and 
> eventually numbers. 
> 
> A "scientific name" as used here is a name of an organism 
> established in a scientific context. This includes also 
> unavailable names and polynominal names of the 1600s, given 
> that they were established for the use in sciences. A 
> scientific name is opposed to a vernacular name.
> 
> "Scientific name string" is an inaccurate term which I do not 
> use because it is not defined and can have a broad range of 
> meanings. For educational purposes I would never use this term.
> 
> In the ICZN Code the term "name" (of a taxon) refers to Parus 
> major, and does not include author and year (ICZN Code Art. 
> 51.1). Author and year are attached to the name, this is 
> recommended by the IZCN Code, which also provides rules how 
> to do that consistently.
> 
> The combination genus-species-author-year used in electronic 
> environments has been called "taxon name author string" since 
> the 1990s. I find this term useful and apply it also myself 
> because since the time when it was established it has been 
> restricted to modern scientific names under one of the 
> currently accepted Codes, and includes more than the pure 
> name, at least author, usually also year.
> 
> Francisco
> 
> (My browser is not technically able to post this answer to 
> the given wiki page. If somebody likes to post my answer 
> there I have no problems with it).
> 
> 
> University of Goettingen, Germany
> www.animalbase.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with 
> either of these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here