[Taxacom] Cross posting on use of sic

[Richard Pyle]

I think "sic" pretty clearly would refer to the spelling, not the taxonomic placement.  The reason people even bother to use "sic" is to make it clear that there was not an error in the current work, and that the error existed in the previous work. As such, one would not inadvertently add a classification, so there would be no need to make it clear that the classification was in the original cited work, rather than a printing error in the current work.  Moreover, there is a continuous spectrum of disagreement regarding taxonomic opinion as it relates to classifications.  I think it would be a mistake to start a trend of adding "sic" just to denote a highly unusual classification, because then it would not be clear when it was appropriate to add "sic".  We have enough nomenclatural qualifiers to deal with as it is, so let's not add more.

But I think the main point is that "sic" is generally used to make it clear that there is not a printing or other typographical error in the current work, and representing of classification (e.g., via the inclusion of a subgenus), no matter how unusual, does not seem likely to come about via a printing or other typographical error.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:27 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Cross posting on use of sic
> 
> Principally I agree with Adam, sic inside the subgenus parentheses and in
> square brackets.
> However it would be useful not to leave space for misunderstandings.
> Does "sic" mean that the subgenus was misspelled in the cited source? Or
> does it mean that the spelling in the cited source was correct, but the
> subgeneric classification was so unusual that it appears useful to indicate
> that in the cited source the species was really and seriously classified in this
> subgenus?
> In the first case it might be useful to cite Canthon (Glahyrocanthon [sic, =
> Glaphyrocanthon]) vulcanoae Or even Canthon (Glaphyrocanthon) vulcanoae
> [subgenus misspelled by Miller as Glahyrocanthon]
> 
> Francisco
> 
> Am 01.12.2015 um 14:33 schrieb Adam Cotton:
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "JF Mate"
> > <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> > To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 6:40 PM
> > Subject: [Taxacom] Cross posting on use of sic
> >
> >
> >> I thought this was an interesting question:
> >>
> >> "Hello all,
> >>
> >> When quoting the use of a species name with a misspelled subgeneric
> >> name, would you write the addition '(sic)' inside or outside the
> >> brackets surroundng the misspelled subgenus?
> >>
> >> Example: Canthon (Glahyrocanthon (sic)) vulcanoae or Canthon
> >> (Glahyrocanthon) (sic) vulcanoae ?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Auke"
> >>
> >
> > Yes, an interesting question. In this case I would say put the 'sic'
> > inside so that it is obvious exactly what it is referring to. I would
> > also always put the 'sic' in square brackets, since that format
> > indicates 'sic' is the author's addition:
> >
> > Canthon (Glahyrocanthon [sic]) vulcanoae
> >
> > Adam.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.