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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Something of a problem with that interpretation of the Code: would we not then have to verify that Hergstrom, or whoever, really did write the description and willingly contribute it, in order to verify that the name was available with Hergstrom as author? Could be tricky! Would it not be better to just take it as authorship "by decree". What if Hergstrom was a figment of Cranston & Edwards' imagination after a party one night?! I would say that the author of the name would still be Hergstrom, even though no such person exists! We are back to that Dubois article in Zootaxa about the interpretation of authorities for nomina - they are not persons! He calls them signatures, but I call them nominal persons...

Stephen

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Croft [jim.croft at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 5 September 2009 4:41 p.m.
To: fwelter at gwdg.de
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

Yes, this is quite a common practice and this is how I have always
interpreted it.

In the case of 'Aphrotenia australiensis Hergstrom, in Cranston &
Edward, 1992', the name 'Aphrotenia australiensis' was proposed,
described and typified by Hergstrom in a
reference/publication/paper/monograph/etc. by Cranston & Edward, in
which Hergstrom could be considered a contributor, but not an author.

Cranston & Edward did not attribute the species authorship as such in
a act of grace and favour.  Hergstrom did the work and Cranston &
Edward are including and quoting it.  This is often done when a name
is needed in a hurry for a publication and the authors can not wait
for the magnum opus, and sometimes in acknowledgement and deference to
the intellectual contribution of the describing author.

I agree with Stephen's earlier comment that the 'author string'
(whatever you chose that to be) while not essential under the code, is
a useful indicator (based on prior knowledge) of how robust and
reliable a particular name or combination might be.

jim

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Francisco
Welter-Schultes<fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:
>> You can, as an author of a
>> publication, attribute a new name to anybody you like
>
> It is important who wrote the description. It is not enough to
> state "person X shall be author of this new name" but you must
> say "person X wrote the description alone and I am just quoting
> that text".
>
> Francisco
>
>
> University of Goettingen, Germany
> www.animalbase.org
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>



--
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe

_______________________________________________

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