[Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for Animals

Sat Oct 17 17:03:36 CDT 2015

Hi Tony,
Well, that was the short version of my argument. Clearly, I need to elaborate. Firstly, note that the principle of priority does not apply to unregulated names. Inevitably, people think that it does apply whenever they see authors and dates cited, which causes confusion. You claim that there is "value" in associating such names with author/date, but there is also a big price to be paid in terms of (1) pointless complexity (i.e. tracking details of old literature for no real benefit), (2) possibility for confusion and (3) inconsistency with Code regulated names. By (3), I refer to the fact that author/date for unregulated names means one thing (i.e. date first published), but means something entirely different for regulated names (i.e. date first published in a Code compliant way). If you want to disambiguate "homonyms" in unregulated names, then I suggest that you do so by way of parent taxa and/or rank, e.g. X (Animalia, order) vs. X (Plantae, phylum).
Cheers, Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 18/10/15, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for Animals
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Mary Barkworth" <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>, "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Sunday, 18 October, 2015, 10:54 AM

 Hi
 Stephen,
 That may be your
 view and I see the argument you make for it. Another view
 would be that even though the Code does not govern names at
 higher rank than family-group, there is value in associating
 the names of newly erected higher taxa (e.g. when cited as
 ordo novum, classis novum, etc.) with the author and year
 proposed, for future reference. How far back you then take
 this historically is a matter of personal preference (just
 in my opinion of course). Probably "accepted
 usage" trumps what the Code has to say in these cases
 (and as you point out, the Code says nothing).
 Regards - Tony
 On 18 October 2015 at
 08:31, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 Actually,
 in zoology, names above superfamily do not have authors or
 dates, though this fact is widely misunderstood. I think
 about it this way: the author and date of a name
 (superfamily down to subspecies) is not necessarily the date
 that the name was first published (publication it was first
 published in). Rather, it is the date that it was first
 published in a Code compliant way. Since the Code is silent
 on names above superfamily, there is no such thing as Code
 compliance for these names. Therefore there is no meaningful
 author/date.

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------

 On Sun, 18/10/15, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for Animals

  To: "Mary Barkworth" <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>

  Cc: "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

  Received: Sunday, 18 October, 2015, 9:09 AM

  Hi Mary,

  I don't think anyone

  replied to one of your original questions regarding

  citing authorship for higher ranks: yes, these

  also have authors (and

  years), although many

  publications neglect to include them. For example:

  (Order) Primates Linnaeus,

  1758

  (Family) Hominidae Gray, 1825

  One benefit of this is that it

  permits the discrimination of family-level

  homonyms, of which some exist. Another is that

  it provides a pointer to the

  relevant

  literature in which the names were erected. A third is
 that

  it

  provides some insight into the historical

  sequence of the taxonomy of the

  group or

  name in question (recent or long-established, etc.)

  So I would suggest that even

  where these are absent or unknown in the

  source you are using, you leave a slot for them

  in your database in case

  you want to

  populate these at some time.

  Hope this helps,

  Best regards - Tony

  On 18 October

  2015 at 05:01, Mary Barkworth <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>

  wrote:

  > Thank you

  everyone who replied. I feel confident that I can now

  provide

  > the correct information (so

  long as ITIS is correct) to the database I am

  > developing. I appreciate the help.

  >

  > Mary

  >

  > -----Original

  Message-----

  > From: Robin Leech

  [mailto:releech at telus.net]

  > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 11:29

  AM

  > To: 'Adam Cotton' <adamcot at cscoms.com>;

  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;

  Mary

  > Barkworth <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>

  > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors

  for Animals

  >

  > Hi

  Mary,

  > Well, zoologists have sub

  species, but also subgenera.

  > So, in

  theorgy you could have Genus, subgenus, species,
 subspecies

  = 4.

  > It all depends on how much work

  has been done in a group.

  > I think birds

  and beetles may have the most subspecific and
 subgeneric

  > entries.

  > Robin

  >

  > -----Original

  Message-----

  > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]

  On Behalf Of

  > Adam Cotton

  > Sent: October-17-15 10:50 AM

  > To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

  > Subject: [Taxacom] Fw: Citing Authors for

  Animals

  >

  > -----

  Original Message -----

  > From: "Mary

  Barkworth" <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>

  > To: <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

  > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 9:18

  PM

  > Subject: [Taxacom] Citing Authors

  for Animals

  > >

  >

  Also, do zoologists now have only one infraspecific
 rank,

  subspecies? If

  > not, what does one do

  when one has a trinomial with no indication of what

  > the lowest rank is supposed to be?

  > >

  > > Mary

  > >

  >

  >

  > Mary,

  >

  > Yes, there is only

  one infraspecific rank recognised by the ICZN Code, the

  > subspecies.

  >

  > If you have a trinomial you should assume

  that it is "Genus species

  >

  subspecies", unless the middle name is in () and has
 a

  capital first letter

  > in which case it

  is "Genus (Subgenus) species".

  >

  > 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.

  >

  --

  Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia

  https://about.me/TonyRees

  _______________________________________________

  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.

 -- 
 Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australiahttps://about.me/TonyRees