[Taxacom] globalnames?

[David Patterson]

I note Species 2000 states:

Hohenbuehelia petalodes (Bull.) Schulzer 1866 (accepted name) 

Hohenbuehelia petaloides (Bull.) Schulzer 1866 has the same status

Both are included as species within the genus by Species2000, but not by IF.

David Patterson


----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoffrey Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: "Kevin Richards" <RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz>
Cc: "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:01:58 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] globalnames?

Well I'm sorry but now I'm back to still wondering if the poster pdf 4th
box 'petalodes' names are poster author mistakes.  And even if intended
it's a difficult example for the non-initiated to follow.

On author abbreviations (botanical or zoological) - they're a relic from
ancient times. Why on earth would anyone perpetuate their use? Not
untutored user friendly. So Bull with a full stop equals Bulliard
is never confusable for Bull without a full stop equals just Bull? I don't
think so.

Off topic but similarly absurd is the continuation of the preoccupation of
some editors that one should never judiciously spell out genus names, even
when there's several different genera being discussed in a para. And a
paper I saw recently gave the genus involved more or less as an aside once
in the intro - you had to really hunt to find it - then no more in the
rest of the text - just the one letter representation. Crazy, and
irritating.

Geoff


On Fri, September 18, 2009 9:50 am, Kevin Richards wrote:
> on behalf of Paul Kirk...

> 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? ... ;-)



_______________________________________________

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

-- 
David J Patterson
Senior Taxonomist, EOL
Biodiversity Informatics
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA.

(+) (1) 508 289 7260
dpatterson at mbl.edu