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 2009-07-20 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 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).
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-05-27 09:43:32 Recommendation 50A should be transferred into an Article: Rec. 50A was carelessly inserted in 2000 and was not previously contained in the Code. It has had the effect that authors of multi-co-authored papers have seen themselves allowed to restrict authorships for names in an almost entirely arbitrary form. This has quickly opened up a new tradition which can probably not be reversed any more. Sabrosky 1974 (BZN 31 (4): 206-208) had given a clear and useful guide for authorships which was not acknowledged in subsequent editions of the Code. The result provoked by Rec. 50A contrasted Sabrosky's 1974 guide. We have two basically different traditions in zoology. One follows Sabrosky's 1974 official interpretation of the Code (which allowed different authorships only in cases of a "clearcut" attribution of authorships for descriptions), and the other one follows the implicit assumption that if a name was attributed to a different scientist, that this different scientist provided with sufficient probability the information for the description. I would be desirable if the Code's legal text provided a clear rule to be used for all cases. But today this is not possible any more because of the new Rec. 50A. Before 2000 it was necessary to analyse the original source and to determine who was actually responsible for the description. After 1999 this would result in a total chaos. Today many multi-authored papers contain a lot of information relevant to the descriptions of the new species, and it is often totally unclear who compiled this information. They contain identification keys, tables, comparative comments. Sabrosky 1974 said that the person who aggregated information to compile an identification key, shall be the responsible author for this key. Such a key would be part of the description. The same with tables. If that person who compiled a key or a table (and who is never identified in a multi-authored paper) is not among the co-authors to which a new name is attributed, then the new name would have to be be attributed to all co-authors of the work. This is what would create the chaos. Because most modern authors do not know this meaning of "author" in the Code's sense, and they attribute their new names to incorrect authors. And because subsequent scientists and database providers (including ZooBank) do not know the detailed rules either, they just attribute the new names to the co-authors specified in the work itself. Changing this new procedure would probably not be for the benefit of taxonomy. Most taxonomists say "why should we care?". The only solution is to modify the Code and to legalize the current practice provoked by the carelessly inserted Rec. 50A (if carefully done, Rec. 50A would have explained exactly what co-authors of multi-authored papers were allowed to do and what not). Art. 50.1.6 "If a name was established after 1999 in a multi-authored work and attributed to a different set of one or more co-authors, the authorship for the new name shall be attributed to the author or co-authors specified in the original source regardless of their responsibility for making the new name available." Examples: The gastropod name Truncatellina cameroni was established in 2004 by Triantis, Pokryszko, Vardinoyannis & Mylonas in an article which contained only the description of this one new species. In the original source the new name was attributed to Triantis & Pokryszko alone. Since Vardinoyannis & Mylonas cannot have had any other task than one involved in the description of the new name, the responsibility for making the name available was by all four co-authors. The name shall be attributed to Triantis & Pokryszko alone because the article was published after 1999. In 2011 Yanes and six co-authors published and article on five new species of the gastropod genus Napaeus. Next to the verbal descriptions the article contained also detailed tables in which the morphological data of the new species were compared. The first new species was attributed to co-authors 2, 6 and 7, the third new species to co-authors 3, 4 and 5. The co-author who compiled the table was not specified, so in the absence of the clearcut attribution the table was under the responsibility of all seven co-authors. Since the table belonged to the descriptions, the attributed co-authorships were not representing the true responsibilities for the descriptions. They are accepted because the article was published after 1999. Another option would be to specifiy which part of a description would be regarded as decisive and which one not, so that tables and key would be excluded, but this would probably open a can of worms. Simply saying "no need to care" is probably the easiest solution.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-05-29 17:54:06 A new Article 50.1.7 should be added to legalize common practice concerned with early Swedish dissertations. Art. 50.1.7. In early Swedish dissertations the person who wrote the textual content shall be regarded as the author of the work. Examples. The mammalian name Simia pygmaeus was established in a dissertation from 1760 of the university of Uppsala, in which Linnæus was the professor, Hoppius the student. It is known that the text was written by Linnaeus. The name shall be attributed to Linnaeus. The lepidopteran name Geometra furcata was established in a dissertation from 1784 of the university of Uppsala, in which Thunberg was the professor, Borgström the student. It is known that the text was written by Thunberg. The name shall be attributed to Thunberg. The bivalvian name Unio was established in a dissertation from 1788 of the university of Lund, in which Retzius was the professor, Philipsson the student. It is known that the text was written by Philipsson. The name shall be attributed to Philipsson. The acanthocephalan name Haeruca erinacei was established in a dissertation from 1793 of the university of Greifswald, which was Swedish in this epoch, and in which Quistorp was the professor, Rudolphi the student. It is known that the text was written by Rudolphi. The name shall be attributed to Rudolphi. This Article is necessary to align the Code with current practice. Art. 50.1.1 alone would demand that the names should always be attributed to the professors. This is not done. On the title pages were always given two names: the professor's name (under which the works are always cited in bibliographical resources, library calatogues etc.) and the student's name. Initially the professors (Linnaeus, Thunberg, Quensel) wrote the texts and the students had to respond in the exams. Later the responsibilities changed and the students wrote the texts of their Ph. D. theses themselves. But invariably the official authorships of the dissertations were owned by the professors (examples Retzius, Quistorp). It is common practice in all zoological fields to attribute the authorship of the contents to the person who wrote the texts (not Retzius but Philipsson 1788, not Quistorp but Rudolphi 1793). It must be emphasized that the "true authorship" of the dissertations is never "clear from the contents", as demanded by Art. 50.1.1. The layout design of the title pages was always the same in all dissertations, regardless of the textual responsibility. This is why unexperienced taxonomists occasionally attribute such names to the "wrong" authors.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-05-30 12:07:37 Recommendation 51D should be aligned with the legal text of the Code. Art. 50.1.8 "If the author of the work is deemed to be anonymous, but is known or inferred from external evidence, then this author is deemed to be the author of the name or act. If cited, this author shall be enclosed in square brackets to show the original anonymity. The square brackets shall not be used if the authorship was indicated in at least one volume of a multivolume work, but was not repeated in every single volume. " Examples. The first edition of the two volumes of "Histoire abrégée des insectes" were published anonymously in 1762. In the second edition in 1764 Geoffroy's authorship was indicated. [Geoffroy] is deemed to be the author of the 1762 edition. "A catalogue of the Portland Museum" was published anomymously in 1786. Dance (1962) presented convincing evidence that Lightfoot was the anonymous author of the work. The work is to be attributed to [Lightfoot]. The 13th edition of "Systema Naturae" was published in 7 volumes between 1788 and 1792 by Gmelin. His authorship was indicated on the title page of the first volume in 1788, but not repeated in the other volumes. All volumes shall be attributed to Gmelin, no square brackets shall be used. There have been various occasions at which was suggested in the [iczn-list] listserver to align this Recommendation better with the legal text (30 May 2012 and previous others). The "Anonymous rule" is not applied in zoological reality, not even by the Commission. It has also been argued that the Code is perfectly in line with current practice, but is only misunderstood. Both options are not desirable. In my experience the inferred "true" authors are almost always used (and cited in square brackets) if they are known. Only if they are not known the author is cited as "Anonymous".
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-05-31 15:53:31 Art. 50.1, proposal for correction: Sentence 1 "The author of a name or nomenclatural act is the person who first publishes it [Arts. 8, 11] ..." Art. 11 was inserted in the 4th edition (in the 3rd it was 8 alone), but I don't understand why. It has probably nothing to do with actual publication and can be removed from this passage (Art. 11.1 contains only a reference to Art. 8 and is thus covered by the direct reference to Art. 8). 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. The current text 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. Another problem is that the author of the work in the sense of Art. 50 is probably not always identical with the author of the work in the sense of Art. 8. Examples: In 1843 Dieffenbach published a book on the nature of New Zealand. This book contained also a chapter on the natural history, with articles by various different authors (Gray, Richardson and others). Dieffenbach was the responsible author of the work to meet the conditions of Art. 8. The zoological articles written by the other authors were the works in the sense of Art. 50.1, not Dieffenbach's main book. Küster, Dunker & Clessin published a volume of a large multivolume series (Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet), their names were given on the title page, with the date 1886. This volume appeared in various fascicles (Lieferungen), a first section between 1841 and 1850 (pp. 1-62), then there was a gap, and then a second section between 1878 and 1886 (pp. 63-430). On p. 63 it was explained that Küster had been responsible for pp. 1-62, Clessin for the rest, and that Dunker only contributed his collection material. The author of the work in the sense of Art. 50.1 is Küster (p. 1-62) and Clessin (pp. 63-430). On p. 21 was established a new name Physa ludwigii, its name was attributed to Krauss, but not its description. The name must be attributed to the author of the work, which in the sense of Art. 50.1.1 was Küster alone, not Küster, Dunker & Clessin who were the three responsible co-authors for the volume. A solution could be this one: "The author of a name or nomenclatural act is principally the author of the work, which is the person who acts responsible for the textual content of its first publication in a way that satisfies the criteria of availability [Arts. 10 to 20]." The next two sentences should be separated (= presented as sub-articles) because they provide exceptions to this rule (or in my proposal, a specification of the term "principally"). The early Swedish dissertations would also obtain the status of such an exception. By inserting the word "principally" the sub-sentence in parentheses "(but for certain names published in synonymy see Article 50.7)" can be skipped and removed. It was basically inserted in the 3rd edition. Sentence 2 "If a work is by more than one person but it is clear from the contents that only one of these is responsible for the name or act, then that person is the author; otherwise the author of the work is deemed to be the author of the name or act." This provision is so little intelligible that only few taxonomists seem to understand it at all. Either it should be removed, or expressed much more clearly. The provision as such seems to be good and seems to be widely accepted, so I would suggest to improve its wording. It is certainly better than the 2nd and 3rd editions, which did not subdivide between external and internal authors. In the 4th edition the need to research the responsibility for providing the criteria of availability was removed for internal authors (= authors to which names were attributed, and which were among the co-authors of the work). The 2nd and 3rd editions still had this requirement for both external and internal authors. I would prefer to use the plural (authors) from the beginning on and not provoke the misunderstanding that Art. 50.1.3 would not apply here. I would also prefer to insert a short explanation somewhere that "satisfying the criteria of availability" means basically, to be explicitly (in a clearcut form) responsible for the description. Not all zoologists know that in the sense of today's Art. 89.1.1 Sabrosky 1974 had explained that the Code's term is mainly to be understood in this sense. "If a work is by several co-authors and it is clear from the contents that only one or several of these are responsible for the name or act, then those persons are the authors. In this case it is not necessary to determine the responsibility for satisfying the criteria of availability. Otherwise Art. 50.1.1 applies." Mentioning the last point is extremely important, because this is the key difference to the 2nd and 3rd editions. I also replaced the "otherwise" provision by "otherwise Art. 50.1.1 applies", because 50.1.1 specifies what shall happen exactly. Strictly taken Art. 50.1 is not true in saying "otherwise the author of the work is deemed to be the author of the name or act", because Art. 50.1.1 allows exceptions. Sentence 3 "If the author, or the person who publishes the work, cannot be determined from the contents, then the name or act is deemed to be anonymous (see Article 14 for the availability of anonymous names and nomenclatural acts)." This sentence should be aligned with Recommendation 51D (see my extra posting on that issue). It would also deserve an extra Article in which the entire context of anonymous authorships is explained in a form that readers could use it as a clear guide. This could be more or less in such a form: If the true authorship of the anonymously published work is known from external evidence, then the name or act is attributed to that author, who shall be set in square brackets. If the true authorship of the anonymously published work is not known, the English term "Anomymous" shall be used for the authorship for the name. Examples: In the journal "Correspondenzblatt des Würtembergischen Landwirthschaftlichen Vereins" was published an anonymous article in 1830 with the description of a new gastropod name Pupa columella. This name was attributed to "Benz". It is known from external evidence that the true author of this article was G. von Martens. The name Pupa columella is attributed to [Martens], not to Benz. In the "Zoological Journal" was published an anonymous book review in 1827 about the 52nd and 53rd fascicles of Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire & Cuvier's "Histoire naturelle des mammifères", which were published in 1825. In this review a new name Loxodonta was validly established for a genus of African elephant, and attributed to Cuvier who had proposed the French scientific name loxodonte in the discussed work. The name of the elephant genus must be Loxodonta Anonymous, 1827. I'd propose to use the English term because in the sensitive electronic age it is useful to have a clear guide which exact letters shall be used.