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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Well, the trend may have started a while ago, relatively speaking, though citations like your example:

"Upeneus preorbitalis Smith & Swain, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., V. 1882, 132"

isn't:

"Upeneus preorbitalis Smith, A.B., jr. & Swain, C.D., Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., V. 1882, 132"

like AFD would be, so it can be interpreted as the name "Upeneus preorbitalis Smith & Swain" followed by a bibiographic reference! Note that authorship and date, or just date, are both optional parts of the name, and in this case just the date has been dropped, and then a bibliographic reference simply tacked on to the same line in the publication. You are choosing to interpret the whole text string as a single unit, but that might not be the intention.

At any rate, I am happy enough to concede that my "repeated claims" about what things were intended for and subsequent alleged trends may not have a firm basis. It is difficult not to "add a bit too much collateral stuff" on to my main point, which is that the simplest and therefore best option is:

Name: Examplus primus Smith, 1970

and if it is deemed necessary to specify who Smith is, or what the exact publication date and/or original publication is, then this is given as additional info in additional fields. At the very least, I don't see any disadvantages with this approach ...

Cheers,

Stephen




________________________________________
From: Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
Sent: Thursday, 3 September 2009 9:02 p.m.
To: Stephen Thorpe
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

A couple quick comments:

First, before the term "NameString" is further abused and distorted, check
out the definition in this context:
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/LinneanCoreDefinitions

Next, as for appending full citations after taxon names, the trend is
actually in the reverse direction from what you describe.  I randomly
grabbed an old book off my shelf (Jordan & Evermann 1903, The Aquatic
Resources of the Hawaiian Islands) and browsed through the species accounts.
Every name listed in the synonymy of species accounts has effectively the
full bibliographic citation following the name, as in (randomly selected
page):
"Upeneus preorbitalis Smith & Swain, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., V. 1882, 132"

There are hundreds and hundreds of such species name listings in this
volume.  I don't often see this in more recent publications. In fact, the
way we're heading (as Paul Kirk alluded to), in the future most names will
themselves be hyperlinks, with a resolvable persistent identifier embedded
invisibly behind the scenes.  Why bother with all this silliness of rigorous
standards and rules for formatting author names, and trying to make what is
ultimately a Human Identifier (see my earlier post on identifiers) into a
computer-friendly GUID?

So, again, I don't see this trend you're claiming.

And again, I ask you to present supporting evidence for your claim "that
author/date were not originally intended to point to a publication, but to
disambiguate homonyms and specify priority".  You keep saying this again and
again, but I don't understand why you are so confident in this assertion.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:33 PM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with
> Mc, Mac, et
>
> >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.
> Well, it reaches its absurd logical conclusion is Zoological
> Catalog of Australia/AFD style citations in which the entire
> bibliographic reference has become part of the "namestring" - yuck!
> The basis of my suggestion comes from my understanding of the
> history of zoological nomenclature from 1758 to present day.
> Unfortunately, it is not something I can explain just like that!
>
> >Or do you think they might have also used that information
> to track down original descriptions?
> Yes, I have even done it myself on numerous occasions, but
> only because there was nothing else to go on. But, as Paul
> Kirk has just said, now there is a better way! I think my
> position is at least consistent, if not strictly provable,
> namely that author/date were not originally intended to point
> to a publication, but to disambiguate homonyms and specify
> priority. Nevertheless, in a world devoid of taxonomic
> databases, people were forced to use whatever clues they
> could find, and author/date was useful. Nevertheless, that
> does not mean that we should continue down that road, now
> that we have other options...
>
> Stephen
> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 3 September 2009 7:58 p.m.
> 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==