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

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Sep 3 03:30:02 CDT 2009 

Yes!  Exactly!!! 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kirk [mailto:p.kirk at cabi.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:07 PM
> To: Richard Pyle; Stephen Thorpe
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with 
> Mc, Mac, et
> 
> In the world of mycology, most taxonomist are but one click 
> away from READING the original publication, having first 
> found the name in Index Fungorum ... it's all just around the 
> corner for most other groups, linking everything to 
> everything is what's happening out there. The days of the 
> author/year being a shorthand link to a publication are gone!
> 
> In haste again,
> 
> Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
> Sent: 03 September 2009 08:59
> To: 'Stephen Thorpe'
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with 
> Mc, Mac, et
> 
> 
> 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=
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> **************************************************************
> ************
> 
> 
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list