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

[Dr Gurcharan Singh]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:52 PM, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:

> 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
>
> > Mario,
>
> > I agree.  Just point me to the list of potentially confusing
> > homonyms and I will pass the word.
>
> On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Mario Blanco wrote:
>
> >> For texts aimed exclusively at non taxonomists, yes, it is probably
> >> best to completely omit author citations, except in cases where
> >> there are potentially confusing homonyms.
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> From:     Paul Kirk <p.kirk at cabi.org>
> >>
> >>> In texts aimed at non taxonomists (field guides, red data lists,
> >>> quarantine lists etc) what would the inclusion of unabbreviated
> >>> author citation add to the understanding of the associated -
> >>> usually taxon, not name - data by said non taxonomists? My opinion
> >>> is that nothing of substance is added by such inclusions and thus
> >>> they are best omitted.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>


 This is the precise problem I am facing while interacting on two prolific
Indian websites, who as they say want to keep website as simple as possible,
but at the same time have accurate identifications and reference to older
names. Imagine then Phyllanthus niruri becoming synonym of P. amarus;
Sambucus ebulus synonym of S. wightiana, scores of similar examples.
     As it turned out many specimens in Sir J D Hooker's Flora of British
India were identified with Western species. It later turned out that many of
these were subsequently found to be belonging to different species, or
described as new species. In such cases reference to older publication
should include synonym as Phyllanthus niriri Hook.f. (non L.), or Sambucus
ebulus Hook.f. (non L.), or as the case may be auct. (non L.). By not using
the author names in such cases the whole meaning of synonymy gets lost. This
may again happen in numerous cases of homonymy.

-- 
Dr. Gurcharan Singh
Associate Professor, Department of Botany, SGTB Khalsa College
University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
Phone: 01125518297; Mobile: 9810359089
http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/