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

[Stephen Thorpe]

[Francisco wrote] As an example, Gray would put a MS. name on a 
specimen in the BM(NH) and Wood, Sowerby, et al., would figure the shell 
before Gray got around to publishing a description. These authors who 
actually published the name with a figure attributed the name to Gray. That 
is, of course, not correct under the Code

[my reply] actually, it isn't quite clear to me that it isn't correct under the Code. The author of a taxon does not have to be the (or even an)  author of the publication in which the taxon name becomes available. You can, as an author of a publication, attribute a new name to anybody you like, for example:

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aphrotenia_australiensis

Stephen

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Petit [r.e.petit at worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Saturday, 5 September 2009 3:07 a.m.
To: Francisco Welter-Schultes; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

Francisco:

Surely you were jesting when you wrote this:

> Seems to be so. Sometimes I wonder why author is needed. Year would be
> sufficient, this is useful for the priority issue. Genus-species-year
> would be almost equally (and of course not totally) unique as
> genus-species-author-year. Author seems to have been added for various
> reasons, initially not in the sense we use author today. In the second
> half of the 1800s they used author more in the sense of what we would call
> sensu today.

If you have read my papers on Reeve and the Sowerbys (and a few others) you
know that I have spent a lot of time with the older literature searching for
the first introduction of various names. Author and year are essential for
locating the original introduction of a name and far too few systematists
bother to find the original source but instead accept some later author's
concept.

In almost all of the 1800s the person who first "proposed a name" was
recognized as the author. As an example, Gray would put a MS. name on a
specimen in the BM(NH) and Wood, Sowerby, et al., would figure the shell
before Gray got around to publishing a description. These authors who
actually published the name with a figure attributed the name to Gray. That
is, of course, not correct under the Code (which did not exist then).  For
my discussion on this and related problems see the 2007 Reeve paper, pages
40-42 (Zootaxa 1648).  In the Sowerby paper (Zootaxa 2189) there is no
discussion on authorship problems as such but the "Taxa Notes" on pages
187-200 contains a variety of problems involving dating and authorship.

Regards,

dick p.


_______________________________________________

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