Diff for "Article50/PageCommentData"

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

,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2008-10-07 11:31:27

A passage should be added:
"50.8. Spelling of authors' names. The spelling of the author is to be taken from the title page of the work in which the available name was established (modified to the nominatice case if originally given in the genitive case). Special characters must be conserved."
Examples: Linnæus, 1758; Linné, 1766. 
A ruling is needed because zoologists are undecided which names to use. In botany exist official lists of names of authors, and their official abbreviations. The situation in zoology is much more complex, many authors were spelled in different ways and bibliographers and scientists are undecided which ones should be regarded as more or less official. The international library catalogues' conventional name for the founder of zoological nomenlature is Linné, but zoologists tend to use Linnaeus. There is no other and easier solution than to use the name as printed on the title page of the corresponding work. This is also in the general spirit of the high importance of original spellings in zoological nomenclature.

,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
2008-10-07 12:28:42

50.1 needs to be generally more explicite.
To 50.1.1 should be added:
"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 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evidence that the entire descriptive text was originally written by the other person, and literally cited from an unpublished manuscript."
This concerns for example Reeve's names, who 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 is Reeve alone.

To 50.1.3 should be added:
"If only 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 not otherwise stated in the original publication, the first author of the name shall be the author of the work."
Example: 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.
(At present we have no idea how to proceed in such cases, especially the way of order of co-authors in such cases is totally unclear).

,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 05:02:21

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 puctuation 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.