[Taxacom] globalnames?

[Stephen Thorpe]

I did wonder about that petalodes/petaloides spelling too! 

>A zoologist would certainly not use the abbrev Bull. for Bulliard (more potential for obfuscation), and would I hope have given the date, Bulliard, 1780 for the basionym
In a publication, probably you are correct - though an ecologist might! But on a specimen label, that it is different story...

I wonder if we could avoid needing to deal with minor variations in Author/date citation altogether? It is only an issue if there is homonymy, otherwise the binomial is unique. Perhaps there ought to be a concerted effort to rid the world of homonyms (as some Turks seem to be trying to do!), and known cases of homonymy in the past could just be flagged in the database for human scrutiny to resolve any ambiguity. There probably aren't THAT many cases of homonymy by comparison to the totality of names. More of a problem would be misspellings of one name that happen to be correct names of others, but this would be very rare ...

S

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read [gread at actrix.gen.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 17 September 2009 2:05 p.m.
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] globalnames?

Interesting. But to rain, or lightly drizzle on yr parade Kevin - reading
it through I'm confused on the taxonomists' petalodes/petaloides spellings
down the years, and also whether you've made a mistake yourselves on that
between boxes 3 & 4 in the Schulzer combination, or is it all part of the
demonstration? And why does EOL have its entry as petalodes when mostly
it's petaloides elsewhere, the former 'petalodes' possibly the original
author's orthography? Possibly it's crystal clear to any botanist but I
only have so much time :).  Maybe a bit too finicky an example?

A zoologist would certainly not use the abbrev Bull. for Bulliard (more
potential for obfuscation), and would I hope have given the date,
Bulliard, 1780 for the basionym.

Geoff

>>> On 9/17/2009 at 10:17 a.m., Kevin Richards
<RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz>
wrote:
> To emphasise Rich's point, a gander at the poster we showed at
e-Biosphere may
> help.
>
> http://202.27.243.4/TDWG/GNUBPoster.pdf
>
> It shows the name expansion idea, going from the "god-awful mess" (name
> strings), drilling down into the stable nomenclatural names, and back
out to
> "synonym" concepts and other connected GNI name strings.





_______________________________________________

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