[Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

[Richard Pyle]

I'm not entirely certain that I'm the one missing the point here....

Most taxonomists over the past 2.5 centuries did not have access to good
databases.  Do you think most of them used author/year for homonymy/priority
exclusively?  Or do you think they might have also used that information to
track down original descriptions?  This is your quote that I was responding
to:

"The only reason to cite the authority/date with the name is as an
(imperfect) indication of homonymy and priority."

I would have not held you to the "only" part, except for the earlier post
from you that said:

"My main point was that the authority/date isn't intended to point to a
publication, but rather as an (imperfect) indication of homonymy and
priority." 

What is the basis for your suggestion that there is a "trend to complicate
author/date more and more in order to point more effectively to the original
publication."?  I hadn't noticed that trend. 

And, more importantly, what is the basis for your claim, "But this [locating
the original publication] is not what author/date was intended for!"  You've
said this repeatedly, and as I said in the "PS" of one of my previous posts,
I don't know why you seem so certain.

Yes, there is a better way.  A MUCH better way.  Much better, in fact, than
simply "just have a special field on the database page for the taxon called
'Original publication'".  Here's just one small example of some background
reading: http://systbio.org/files/phyloinformatics/1.pdf  Here's some more:
http://tdwg.napier.ac.uk/index.php  Others on this list could point you to
many more examples.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:26 PM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with 
> Mc, Mac, et
> 
> >Not to pick on you, Stephen, but
> Don't worry, I'm used to that! :)
> 
> >I much more often use the author/year information to help me 
> track down 
> >the original publication in which the name was established
> Yes, I know! It is difficult to make what I am saying 
> completely clear, without some "loose talk", but you are 
> missing a point about the context of this discussion. 
> Without good databases, we are forced to resort to using 
> author/date as a clue to point us in the direction of the 
> original publication. This leads to a trend to complicate 
> author/date more and more in order to point more effectively 
> to the original publication. But this is not what author/date 
> was intended for! Given that we are now at a stage in history 
> where comprehensive taxonomic databases are in the pipeline 
> (too darn many of them, in fact), I am saying that there is a 
> better way: just have a special field on the database page 
> for the taxon called 'Original publication', and leave the 
> poor old author/date the way it was intended to be. My made 
> up example, again (imagine it as part of a database page):
> 
> Name: Examplus primus Smith, 1970
> Original publication: Smith, A.B., jr. 1970: Revision of 
> Examplus. Journal of hypothetical taxonomy, 1: 1-2. 
> [publication date: 1 January 1970]
> 
> Note that the author/date are in the name field (as they are 
> in any sensible taxonomic database), implying that they are 
> part of the name in some meaningful sense, despite an overly 
> pedantic interpretation of the Code denying this! I guess one 
> of the many inconsistencies in the Code is that it says 
> author/date isn't part of the name, but then treats it as 
> part of the name in many contexts...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Stephen
> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 9:47 p.m.
> To: Stephen Thorpe; 'Chris Lyal'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with 
> Mc, Mac, et
> 
> Not to pick on you, Stephen, but:
> 
> > The only reason to cite the authority/date with the name is as an 
> > (imperfect) indication of homonymy and priority.
> 
> Yes, this is "a" reason.  No, it is not the *only* reason.  I 
> much more often use the author/year information to help me 
> track down the original publication in which the name was 
> established, than I do for disambiguating homonyms or 
> assessing priority. You can make all the claims you want 
> about what the "real" reason is for citing authorships, but 
> that doesn't change how I most often *use* that information.  
> And I don't only use it for that purpose when wearing my 
> taxonomy-nerd hat; I also use it that way when wearing my 
> database-nerd hat. I agree with Chris: "shouldn't we be 
> compiling use cases of what they *are* used for?"
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich=