[Taxacom] Unexpectedly wide discrepancies in cited taxon authorities - examples sought

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

True... of course there is always a necessity to distinguish between original descriptions and simple later usages (or redescriptions, sometimes in good faith). On the other hand I am at the moment trying to identify some systematic but non-intuitive examples of variant cited authorities for the same taxon as described in the same work, other than the standard/predictable ones.

Regards - Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of David Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 10:30 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Unexpectedly wide discrepancies in cited taxon
> authorities - examples sought
> 
> Older authors often identified a species as new when they merely
> changed the genus, providing one source of confusion about original
> authorship.
> 
> I know at least one major online database has some careless data entry
> producing several listings in which the publication where a name was
> found by the compiler, rather than the actual species author, is
> listed under authorship of the species.
> 
> 
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> Collections Assistant
> The Paleontological Research Institution
> 1259 Trumansburg Road
> Ithaca NY 14850