[Taxacom] Author inclusion or non-inclusion with species names

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Hi Paul, all,

I agree, these problems are found to a lesser extent in "finished products", but first, few products are ever really "finished" (as I'm sure you will agree), and second there is a moving target out there as species get moved around between genera, subgenera/genera are elevated or demoted, and multiple points of view can co-exist about the placement of particular species, either with existing or new knowledge - i.e. even the best "snapshots" of today will slowly get out of date, however the names they promote will persist in the literature (where Google etc. will do an excellent job of finding them, with associated data) as well as in less-than-current usage e.g. the many "database names" as supplied to GBIF etc.

I guess we are seeing different sides of the coin really - you are aspiring to perfection/stability in the database/s under your control, I am dealing with names from multiple sources as they are to be found in the wild (so to speak) so cannot escape these variations, as will anyone who is involved with biological information retrieval for which names are the keys...

Regards - Tony


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kirk [mailto:p.kirk at cabi.org] 
Sent: Friday, 2 October 2009 4:49 PM
To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Author inclusion or non-inclusion with species names

I think my examples, without taking the 'etc' too far off target, are finished products. What you suggest as requiring authors are 'works in progress' - on which I agree ... to a certain extent

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Sent: 02 October 2009 02:52
To: dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Author inclusion or non-inclusion with species names

Dear all,

Just picking up on this element of a thread as of a week ago (a week being a long time on Taxacom!!) - see appended email extracts for orientation...

I would take issue with the comments below regarding the non-desirability of species author names in "texts aimed at non taxonomists" for a couple of reasons - first, texts or websites often have a range of potential users, so "taxonomists" may end up consulting "non taxonomic" resources and vice versa, and second, inclusion of author names is often a clue that taxa which are classified in different ways on different lists may in fact be the same apart from a genus transfer. E.g. if you see "Onykia loennbergii Ishikawa and Wakiya, 1914" on the Tree of Life site (which you could arguably claim is aimed at non-taxonomists), http://www.tolweb.org/Onykia_loennbergii , there is an improved chance that the keen user may spot that this is at least possibly the same as "Moroteuthis loennbergii Ishikawa and Wakiya, 1914" elsewhere, e.g. SeaLifebase (http://www.sealifebase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=57316), and so on, than if the authority were omitted in both cases.

A converse aspect is that of spotting potential duplicates on lists, e.g. in WoRMS a day or so back I found the following name pairs, all currently listed as valid, in Ascidiacea:

Didemnum patalum (Herdman, 1899)
Didemnum patulum (Herdman, 1899)
Didemnum peyreffitense Brément, 1913
Didemnum peyrefittense Brement, 1913
Didemnum spongioide Sluiter, 1909
Didemnum spongoides Sluiter, 1909
Polysyncraton longitubis Kott, 2004
Polysyncraton longtubis Kott, 2004
Polysyncraton multiforme Kott, 2001
Polysyncraton multiformis Kott, 2001
Polysyncraton multipapilla Monniot, 1993 Polysyncraton multipapillae Monniot, 1993 Polysyncraton poro Monniot & Monniot, 1987 Polysyncraton porou Monniot & Monniot, 1987 Didemnum mortenseni Michaelsen, 1924 Polysyncraton mortensi (Michaelsen, 1924)

Now at some point, hopefully, thes will be cleaned up, but at least inclusion of the authority provides some guidance to the user (taxonomist or non-taxonomist) as to what might be going on here (i.e. more names than actual taxa). Of course if the authority is different as well, one would draw a different conclusion.

Regards - Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 5:53 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] globalnames?

This rather speaks of a database mentality? "In texts aimed at non taxonomists (field guides, red data lists, quarantine lists etc)" these "potentially confusing homonyms", if any exist at all, will be so few as not being worth listing (again, that is the whole purpose of nomenclature). They will be topic-related, also.

Paul

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens David Remsen (GBIF)
Verzonden: do 24-9-2009 15:51

Find out about CABI's global summit on 'Food security in a climate of change' at www.cabiglobalsummit.com 
19 - 21 October 2009, London, UK.

************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. 

Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.

CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.

**************************************************************************