[Taxacom] globalnames?

[Kevin Richards]

on behalf of Paul Kirk...


My replies to the list from home via Outlook Web Access are bounced by the listserver because of unacceptable content ('spam') added by the CABI Exchange server.

Simple explanation ... for which see:
http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=490345

Names, in 'botanical' nomenclature, applied to fungi can be Sanctioned (Art. 13.1d -
http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0017Ch2Sec4a013.htm)
and although no stated explicitly, the orthography of sanctioned names is accepted as correct in cases where it differs from that in the protologue where the name was validly published, assuming that it is not in conflict with Art. 60
(http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/frameset/0065Ch7OaGoNSec1a60.htm).
In this case both petalodes and petaloides are acceptable alternatives so the original orthography of Bulliard is 'overturned' by that adopted by Fries.

And to inform a previous post which referred to the use of 'Bull.' as being inadvisable ... in 'botany' we have standardized 'recommended' forms for 'plant name authors' which unambiguously refer to a single person and which are increasingly used in author citation - to everyones benefit. We have our house in order in this respect - perhaps the zoologists may wish to follow suit? ... ;-)

Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Read
Sent: Friday, 18 September 2009 8:53 a.m.
To: David Patterson
Cc: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] globalnames?

Yes. I'm not a botanist so that's no business of mine. If you put in
'Hohenbuehelia petaloides' in a search you get only a link to H.
'petalodes', so something additional to simply reflecting CoL is happening
at EOL.  I mentioned EOL not to criticize, just to point out the
difference.

This example has been paraded, and I was sort of expecting it would be
simple for one of those who signed their names to it (all Taxacom listers)
to explain the nuances, since it is obviously important to them, so they
all must understand it. Right? (well one says he doesn't, & that's ok).
My opinion is that an example that appears to strongly feature a minor
spelling anomaly ain't a good choice. But that may have been why it was
chosen - we'll hopefully find out.

Geoff

On Fri, September 18, 2009 7:33 am, David Patterson wrote:
> The reason EOL has a particular spelling will be because that is the
> spelling provided by our content partner (Catalogue of Life).  EOL is
> an indexing and aggregating initiative.  Concerns about accuracy
> should be directed to the source databases either directly or by
> contacting the appropriate curators or by adding a comment to the
> species page.
>
> David Patterson
>
> Sent from my mobile
>
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 10:05 PM, "Geoff Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> 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.




_______________________________________________

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

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz