[Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string

[Stephen Thorpe]

Thinking about it, the problem is this: I cannot think of any case other than biotaxonomy wherein extra elements have been added into a straightforward name, e.g.

Homo sapiens is a straightforward name

Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 has extra elements added

The problem is that in some ways, the second form above is considered the "full name", with the optional elements included, while at the same time it is often stated, even in the Code, that author/date are not part of the name! Yet it makes perfect sense to write:

Name: Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758

Similarly, if there was a subgenus Homo (Homo), then this would be another optional part of the name, and the full name would be Homo (Homo) sapiens Linnaeus, 1758

So, one option is to talk about the full name vs. various shortened forms, in which case the full name is what is being called the name string. The advantage of this is that it makes sense of:

Name: Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758

Stephen (not my full name!)
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries [pete.devries at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 22 November 2009 7:45 p.m.
To: dmozzherin at gmail.com
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string

Maybe someone can make a proposal, or describe what they use?

Not a rule that everyone has to follow, but a suggested form that people can
use in conversation and when naming their database fields.

So what so you call these forms of the name:

Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771)
Felis concolor Linnaeus, 1771

and what do you call these forms of the name:

Puma concolor
Felis concolor

So they can be properly understood in conversation and in this form

<whatevernameforthis>Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771)</whatevernameforthis>

<whatevernameforthis>Felis concolor</whatevernameforthis>

- Pete


On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Dmitry Mozzherin <dmozzherin at eol.org>wrote:

> I would like to illustrate how Biodiversity Q/A works, and also get a clear
> clear understanding of terms used in GNI. What is the difference between
> 'Scientific name' and 'Scientific name string'?
>
> Here is the question in full:
>
> http://biodiversity.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-is-the-difference-between-scientific-name-string-and-scientific-name-ter
>
> Thanks
>
> Dima
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>



--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________

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