Diff for "Article50/PageCommentData"

DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.

,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2008-10-07 11:41:58

Another passage is needed:
"50.1.4. Authors of figures (engravers, photographers etc.) are regarded as artists and not as scientific authors or co-authors in the sense of this article."
In malacology we have some species established on the base of a name and a figure (without descriptive text), and where the figure was explicitely attributed to a different person. The authors of figures were traditionally not cited as co-authors of the corresponding new names.

,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2009-07-07 12:51:22

A new article 50.1.5 should be added:
"Names of genera established without description but with one or more species included always take the authorship of the author of the work, regardless of any other statement."

Example: The gastropod genus Tyrrheniberus was established in Kobelt's 1904 work (Iconographie) who at various occasions gave either "Hesse & Kobelt" or "Kobelt & Hesse" as author of the new generic name. Tyrrheniberus was exclusively based on 8 included species, no description was added. Author must be Kobelt, 1904 alone, who was alone responsible for compiling the text.

A new article 50.1.6 should be added:
"Nomina nuda and otherwise unavailable names take always the authorship of the author of the work, regardless of any contrary statements."

Also this passage is needed and would be helpful because in malacology we have such cases. An author cannot make another person responsible for introducing a nomen nudum. 
I know that it is against the spirit of the Code to regulate authorships for nomina nuda, but the problem of communication is there and it would be good to have a clear rule.

,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2009-07-10 07:54:24

50.1 should be modified. 
The Code currently mixes up the terms author, editor and publisher, perhaps because in English the terms are not as accurately used as for example the German equivalents Autor, Herausgeber and Verleger. See my proposal for an accurate definition of the 3 terms in the Glossary, in accordance with its use in library environments and scientific contexts.

"The author of a name or nomenclatural act is the person who acts responsible for the textual content of its first publication [Arts. 8, 11] in a way that satisfies the criteria of availability [Arts. 10 to 20]..."

The author of a name or nomenclatural act is clearly not the person who first publishes it (this is the publisher), but the person who actually wrote the text and submitted it for publication.

,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2009-07-20 05:02:56

A new article should be added:

"50.8. Spelling of names of authors. The spelling of the author(s) in a name of a taxon must be taken from the work in which the available name was established. 
50.8.1. Diacritic marks, ligations, spaces and punctuation marks must be conserved as in the original publication. 
50.8.2. In the case of a name published in otherwise than in the nominative case, the spelling is to be corrected to the nominative case. 
50.8.3. If V was used instead of U in classical Latin (or I instead of J), this has to be corrected to the modern spelling.
50.8.4. Dutch authors should be cited with "Van" or "De" if this was part of their names.
50.8.5. Names of authors spelled in a non-Latin script shall be transcibed using an internationally widely accepted mode of transcription, if possible one that does not use diacritic marks.
50.8.6. Initials of first names shall not be part of the name of the author in a taxon. The same applies to the German particle "von".
50.8.7 If the surname of the author was not given in the work itself, a relatively well accepted spelling of the name shall be used."

Examples: Linnæus 1758 (originally Linnæi), Linné 1766, Laurenti 1768, Müller 1774, De Geer 1775, Fabricius 1775 (originally Fabricii), Statius Müller 1776, La Cépède 1789, Lacépède 1799, Férussac 1807 (originally J. Daudebard fils), Férussac 1821 (originally Le B[ar]on de Férussac), Giglio-Tos 1910, Müller 1921.

The spelling of the author in a name of a taxon has never been a problem, until the age of electronic information where it has become necessary to connect information derived from various independent sources. Presence of various different spellings of authors in names of taxa (including the use of initials) provide a serious obstacle for connecting information on species. 
In contrast to the situation in botany, there is no general database for names of zoological authors, so consulting the original source is the only solution to come to a consistent spelling of the author in a name of a taxon.
The situation in zoology is very complex, many authors were spelled in different ways, bibliographers and taxonomists are undecided which ones should be regarded as the preferred names. The preferred name for the founder of zoological nomenlature in international library databses is Linné, but zoologists tend to use Linnaeus. Preferred library catalogue names cannot be used for this purpose. 
This proposal to derive the name of the author from the original work is in agreement with the general spirit of the high importance of original spellings in zoological nomenclature.

,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2009-08-06 06:39:58

Recommendation 50C should be modified.

"Recommendation 50C. When it is desirable, for bibliographic or other reasons, to refer to an excluded [Art. 1.3] or unavailable name, the authorship should be attributed to the person who published it with that status, even if some other originator is cited (for citation and examples see Recommendation 51F)."

This concerns mainly nomina nuda and names mentioned as synonyms, and some other rare cases. Such names should be cited with the same author as specified in Art. 50.7, which is useful, makes sense and is consistent with the concept that the author of a work is mainly responsible for the published names. Other (cited) persons gain authorships for names only if they contributed susbstantially (with written text) to the contents of a description. 
Only the author of a work is alone responsible for having published a nomen nudum or an otherwise unavailable name, and this responsibility cannot be passed to another person who had no influence of having been cited at that occasion.
This procedure would also be useful for the taxonomist. If it is necessary to talk about a nomen nudum or an otherwise unavailable name, it is necessary to know where exactly this nomen nudum was published. At the next occasion the same name could have been mentioned in another context and refer to a different taxon, although perhaps attributed to the same author - a nomen nudum could refer to anything. Also for this reason it is necessary to cite author and year of the work where an unavailable name was published.

,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2010-02-11 01:59:54

Art. 50.1 needs to be generally more explicite. The contents is good, but its interpretation should be facilitated, and margins for alternative interpretations should be narrowed.

50.1.1 should be modified:
"50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents of the work itself (without the need to consult secondary information) that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication, then that other person is the author of the name or act. If the identity of that other person is not explicit in the work itself, then the author is deemed to be the person who publishes the work. 
Citing the name of a different author behind a new name alone is not sufficient to provide evidence that the other person was fully or partly responsible for the description of the new name. This concerns also cases where it is clear from external evidence that the entire descriptive text was originally written by the other person, and literally cited from an unpublished manuscript."

Examples:
Fourcroy 1785 published a work on insects and explained that the work was based on Geoffroy's method and Geoffroy's 1764 work. Fourcroy did not sate explicitely that the textual contents of the 1785 work was written by Geoffroy. From secondary sources we know that Geoffroy was an entomologist and Fourcroy a chemist, so that the contents of the work was unlikely written by Fourcroy. But since this is not clear from the work itself and cannot be inferred from the contents of the work itself, the authorship for the new names must be attributed to Fourcroy alone.
12 years after P. Forsskål's death Niebuhr published a work in 1775 with new names. We know from secondary sources that the descriptions for the new names were written by Niebuhr and Fabricius. On the title page Forskål (in this spelling) was given as the author, Niebuhr as the editor, Fabricius was not mentioned in the work. Niebuhr's role was not explained in the work itself. Author of the new names must be Forskål alone.
L. A. Reeve in his monograph Conchologica Iconica frequently mentioned names previously reported by other zoologists in meetings of the Zoological Society of London, which was a prerequisite for publication in the Society's journal. The journal issues often appeared shortly after Reeve had published the corresponding sections of his monograph. Author of those names must be Reeve alone.

It would be helpful to have this interpretation given as an explicite guide for the limits of interpretation of Art. 50.1.1, because for the mentioned and likewise cases we always have two alternative interpretations in taxonomy, and the two positions have in none of the cases been able to find an intermediate or commonly accepted solution. In Forskål's case various disciplines (fishes, insects, birds, molluscs, crustaceans) have different traditional strings of interpreting the Code. The arguments of both groups claim to be based on the Code. 

To 50.1.3 should be added:
"If a part of the description was cited (for example in quotation marks) from the manuscript of an explicitely mentioned different author, then authorship is by both co-authors. If (a part of) the description was cited from a previously published source, (co-)authorship is not granted to the author of the previously published source, but to the person who cited the previously published source.

Way of order to cite co-authors. If not otherwise stated in the original publication, the first author of the name shall be the author of the work. If several authors were involved in making the name available under various provisions of Art. 12, and the way of order is not indicated in the original work, the co-authors shall be arranged in order of appearance of the provisions in Art. 12 (description - bibliographic reference - inclusion of species - illustration - description of work). Where these provisions do not qualify either, the co-authors shall be cited in alphabetical order."

Examples: The gastropod Clausilia cattaroensis was described in Rossmässler's work from 1835, who cited the species as ''Cl. cattaroensis'' Ziegler, gave a brief description and added a short passage by Ziegler which he cited in quotation marks. The name of the species must be ''Clausilia cattaroensis'' Rossmässler & Ziegler, 1835.
The gastropod Zonites opressa was established in the late Shuttelworth's 1877 work (which was compiled by Fischer) with a description expressly and entirely attributed to Studer, but the species was also figured on a plate with its name printed on the plate, this plate had been compiled by Shuttleworth (also the names on the plate had been written by Shuttleworth). Fischer had arranged the text, this alone did not qualify for having made the name available. The name of the species must be Zonites oppressa Studer & Shuttleworth, 1877, Studer having been responsible for the description and Shuttleworth for attaching the new name to the illustration.

(At present we have no guide how to proceed in such cases, especially the way of order of co-authors in such cases is totally unclear. Such provisions are important for communication in electronic environments).

,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2010-02-11 02:01:06

Art. 50.1 needs to be generally more explicite. The content is good, but its interpretation should be facilitated, and margins for alternative interpretations should be narrowed.

50.1.1 should be modified:
"50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents of the work itself (without the need to consult secondary information) that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication, then that other person is the author of the name or act. If the identity of that other person is not explicit in the work itself, then the author is deemed to be the person who publishes the work.
Citing the name of a different author behind a new name alone is not sufficient to provide evidence that the other person was fully or partly responsible for the description of the new name. This concerns also cases where it is clear from external evidence that the entire descriptive text was originally written by the other person, and literally cited from an unpublished manuscript."

Examples:
Fourcroy 1785 published a work on insects and explained that the work was based on Geoffroy's method and Geoffroy's 1764 work. Fourcroy did not state explicitely that the textual content of the 1785 work was written by Geoffroy. From secondary sources we know that Geoffroy was an entomologist and Fourcroy a chemist, so that the contents of the work was unlikely written by Fourcroy. But since this is not clear from the work itself and cannot be inferred from the contents of the work itself, the authorship for the new names must be attributed to Fourcroy alone.
12 years after P. Forsskål's death Niebuhr published a work in 1775 with new names. We know from secondary sources that the descriptions for the new names were written by Niebuhr and Fabricius. On the title page Forskål (in this spelling) was given as the author, Niebuhr as the editor, Fabricius was not mentioned in the work. Niebuhr's role was not explained in the work itself. Author of the new names must be Forskål alone.
L. A. Reeve in his monograph Conchologica Iconica frequently mentioned names previously reported by other zoologists in meetings of the Zoological Society of London, which was a prerequisite for publication in the Society's journal. The journal issues often appeared shortly after Reeve had published the corresponding sections of his monograph. Author of those names must be Reeve alone.

It would be helpful to have this interpretation given as an explicite guide for the limits of interpretation of Art. 50.1.1, because for the mentioned and likewise cases we always have two alternative interpretations in taxonomy, and the two positions have in none of the cases been able to find an intermediate or commonly accepted solution. In Forskål's case various disciplines (fishes, insects, birds, molluscs, crustaceans) have different traditional strings of interpreting the Code. The arguments of both groups claim to be based on the Code.

To 50.1.3 should be added:
"If a part of the description was cited (for example in quotation marks) from the manuscript of an explicitely mentioned different author, then authorship is by both co-authors. If (a part of) the description was cited from a previously published source, (co-)authorship is not granted to the author of the previously published source, but to the person who cited the previously published source.

Way of order to cite co-authors. If not otherwise stated in the original publication, the first author of the name shall be the author of the work. If several authors were involved in making the name available under various provisions of Art. 12, and the way of order is not indicated in the original work, the co-authors shall be arranged in order of appearance of the provisions in Art. 12 (description - bibliographic reference - inclusion of species - illustration - description of work). Where these provisions do not qualify either, the co-authors shall be cited in alphabetical order."

Examples: The gastropod Clausilia cattaroensis was described in Rossmässler's work from 1835, who cited the species as ''Cl. cattaroensis'' Ziegler, gave a brief description and added a short passage by Ziegler which he cited in quotation marks. The name of the species must be ''Clausilia cattaroensis'' Rossmässler & Ziegler, 1835.
The gastropod Zonites opressa was established in the late Shuttelworth's 1877 work (which was compiled by Fischer) with a description expressly and entirely attributed to Studer, but the species was also figured on a plate with its name printed on the plate, this plate had been compiled by Shuttleworth (also the names on the plate had been written by Shuttleworth). Fischer had arranged the text, this alone did not qualify for having made the name available. The name of the species must be Zonites oppressa Studer & Shuttleworth, 1877, Studer having been responsible for the description and Shuttleworth for attaching the new name to the illustration.

(At present we have no guide how to proceed in such cases, especially the way of order of co-authors in such cases is totally unclear. Such provisions are important for communication in electronic environments).