Article 51. Citation of names of authors.
51.1. Optional use of names of authors. The name of the author does not form part of the name of a taxon and its citation is optional, although customary and often advisable.
Recommendation 51A. Citation of author and date. The original author and date of a name should be cited at least once in each work dealing with the taxon denoted by that name. This is especially important in distinguishing between homonyms and in identifying species-group names which are not in their original combinations. If the surname and forename(s) of an author are liable to be confused, these should be distinguished as in scientific bibliographies.
Recommendation 51B. Transliteration of author's name. When the author's name is customarily written in a language that does not use the Latin alphabet it should be given in Latin letters with or without diacritic marks.
51.2. Form of citation of authorship. The name of an author follows the name of the taxon without any intervening mark of punctuation, except in changed combinations as provided in Article 51.3.
Recommendation 51C. Citation of multiple authors. When three or more joint authors have been responsible for a name, then the citation of the name of the authors may be expressed by use of the term "et al." following the name of the first author, provided that all authors of the name are cited in full elsewhere in the same work, either in the text or in a bibliographic reference.
51.2.1. The name of a subsequent user, if cited, is to be separated from the name of the taxon in some distinctive and explicit manner, but not by parentheses (cf. Article 51.3), unless an explanation is included.
Example. Reference to Cancer pagurus Linnaeus as used by Latreille may be cited as "Cancer pagurus Linnaeus sensu Latreille", or as "Cancer pagurus Linnaeus (as interpreted by Latreille)" or in some other distinctive manner, but not as "Cancer pagurus Latreille" or "Cancer pagurus (Latreille)".
Recommendation 51D. Author anonymous, or anonymous but known or inferred. If the name of a taxon was (or is deemed to have been) established anonymously, the term "Anon." may be used as though it was the name of the authors. However, if the authorship is known or inferred from external evidence, the name of the author, if cited, should be enclosed in square brackets to show the original anonymity. For availability of names proposed anonymously see Article 14.
Recommendation 51E. Citation of contributors. If a scientific name and the conditions other than publication that make it available [Arts. 10 to 20] are the responsibility not of the author of the work containing them, but of some other person(s), or of less than all of joint authors, the authorship of the name, if cited, should be stated as "B in A", or "B in A & B", or in whatever form is appropriate to facilitate information retrieval (normally the date should also be cited).
Recommendation 51F. Citation of author of unavailable or excluded names. If citation of authorship for an unavailable or excluded name [Rec. 50C] is necessary or desirable, the nomenclatural status of the name should be made evident.
Examples. Halmaturus rutilis Lichtenstein, 1818 (nomen nudum); Yerboa gigantea Zimmermann, 1777 (published in a work rejected by the Commission in Opinion 257); "Pseudosquille" (a vernacular name published by Eydoux & Souleyet (1842)).
51.3. Use of parentheses around authors' names (and dates) in changed combinations. When a species-group name is combined with a generic name other than the original one, the name of the author of the species-group name, if cited, is to be enclosed in parentheses (the date, if cited, is to be enclosed within the same parentheses).
Example. Taenia diminuta Rudolphi, when transferred to the genus Hymenolepis, is cited as Hymenolepis diminuta (Rudolphi) or Hymenolepis diminuta (Rudolphi, 1819).
51.3.1. Parentheses are not used when the species-group name was originally combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name (this applies even though an unjustified emendation is an available name with its own authorship and date [Art. 33.2.3]).
Example. The species-group name subantiqua d'Orbigny, 1850 was established in combination with Fenestrella, d'Orbigny's incorrect spelling of Fenestella Lonsdale, 1839. The species is cited as Fenestella subantiqua d'Orbigny, 1850, and not as Fenestella subantiqua (d'Orbigny, 1850).
51.3.2. The use of parentheses enclosing the name of the author and the date is not affected by the presence of a subgeneric name, by transfer to a different subgenus within the same genus, by a change of rank within the species group, or by transfer of a subspecies to a different species within the same genus.
Example. Goniocidaris florigena Agassiz, when transferred to the genus Petalocidaris, is cited as Petalocidaris florigena (Agassiz). When Petalocidaris is treated as a subgenus of Goniocidaris the parentheses are omitted, even when the complete citation is given as Goniocidaris (Petalocidaris) florigena Agassiz.
51.3.3. If before 1961 a new species-group name was established in combination with a previously available genus-group name and, at the same time, the author conditionally proposed a new nominal genus for it, parentheses are not used with the author's name when the species-group name is used in combination with the previously established generic name, but are used when the species-group name is combined with the conditionally proposed generic name (see Article 220.127.116.11).
Example. Lowe (1843) established the new fish species Seriola gracilis and at the same time conditionally proposed a new genus Cubiceps to contain that nominal species. When included in Cubiceps, the name is cited as Cubiceps gracilis (Lowe, 1843).
Recommendation 51G. Citation of person making new combination. If it is desired to cite both the author of a species-group nominal taxon and the person who first transferred it to another genus, the name of the person forming the new combination should follow the parentheses that enclose the name of the author of the species-group name (and the date, if cited; see Recommendation 22A.3).
Examples. Limnatis nilotica (Savigny) Moquin-Tandon; Methiolopsis geniculata (Stål, 1878) Rehn, 1957.
Preamble | Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 | Glossary Appendices Constitution
It might be useful to add a note concerning the citation of the original combination. The spirit of the present Article suggests that in taxonomic works and nomenclators the original combination should be cited as if the genus (when a new species-group name was proposed) was spelled in the correct original spelling of that genus.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Recommendation 51E should be modified or removed.
It should at least cover all possible combinations, not only "B in A", or "B in A & B". Otherwise this is a source of misunderstandings, as was pointed out in a discussion in the [iczn-list] mailing forum in Sept 2012. To these would belong "A & B in A".
However, the entire Recommendation could also be removed. Because the only sense I can see in reducing co-authorships for names (A, C & F in A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H) is to have shorter strings in authorships of taxonomic names. In paper documents and in electronic databases space is often limited. If we recommend to cite the authorship of a taxonomic name in the form of "A, C & F in A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H" then this does not make much sense. Actually this is not done in the zoological science, and I have the feeling that even the "B in A" authorship citation is much less employed today than it had been a few decades ago. In electronic files combinations using the "in" are rarely seen. These combinations provide obstacles to data integration and data mobilisation (for a computer "B" and "B in A" are very different strings).
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 51.3.2: The example should be corrected.
The name in this example should be Goniocidaris (Petalocidaris) florigera Agassiz, 1879. Neither florida (printed version) nor florigena (as above). I checked the original source.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 51.3 should be expanded.
51.3.4. If a species-group name was first published in synonymy and later made available under Art. 11.6, the original genus shall be the genus in which the name used as valid for the synonym was originally placed, not the genus with which the synonym was combined.
The synonym Polyphemus dilatatus was mentioned by Philippi 1836 for a taxon Achatina algira var. ß. The synonym was made available by Beck 1837. The original genus used by Philippi was Achatina, the four components string of the original combination was Achatina dilatatus Philippi, 1836, and the complete original combination was Achatina algira var. ß synonym Polyphemus dilatatus Philippi, 1836.
This is a change in the course of the revision of standards to be applied for Art. 11.6.
This Article is necessary because it is currently unclear under which circumstances the author will be enclosed in parentheses.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 51.1 should be expanded.
51.1.1. Use of initials excluded. Initials of first names of authors do not form part of the name of a taxon. The title "von" in German names does not form part of the surname of an author.
51.1.2. Spelling of the name of the author. The name of the author shall preferrably be spelled as given in the original source, with diacritic marks and ligations, and converted to nominative case if given otherwise. Widely accepted standard names of authors can also be used, especially outside electronic environments. Persons who changed their name during lifetime shall be cited with the name that was used at the given time, in ambiguous cases the spelling as used in the original source shall be preferred. Authors who published under a pseudonym shall be cited by using that pseudonym.
Examples: Linnæus (author of the 1758 publication) can also be cited as Linnaeus. La Cepède can also be cited as Lacépède.
Variant spellings of authors have been identified as a serious problem in zoology and a solution in the Code is desired. The way how to solve the problem has been under dispute.
There have basically been 3 approaches to solve variant spellings of authors: either to establish a central standard list of author names (like in botany), or to use the original spelling, or to use "preferred" widely accepted standard names based on a diffuse definition of what is current usage.
Since there are no movements and financial funds to establish a standard list, taking the name from the original source is the only consistent way to solve the problem. I would regard it as desireable to make this a mandatory option in the Code. The number of original sources online is increasing, most spellings can already be checked easily.
Bill Eschmeyer's proposal to used a "preferred" spelling and to link this with the original spelling, to keep the original spelling as an option for database interconnection, is also a way to work it out in electronic database environments.
We could also establish a solution by which we would provide a standard list for some important authors and state that all other authors shall be cited as in the original source. But also here we would face a problem. I would favour a solution by which the name of the 1766/1767 author shall be Linné, and not Linnaeus (Carl changed his surname in 1761).
51.1.3. Names published in non-Latin script are transcribed to Latin script using either (preferred) a proposal given in the original source, or an international standard transcription mode. For names of authors from countries with Latin script, who published in non-Latin script and got their names transcribed to non-Latin script, the original Latin spelling can be used, where known.
There are plans to propose official transcriptions for Russian and other scripts, perhaps we can also include these as mandatory.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 51.2 should be expanded.
51.2. The name of an author follows the name of the taxon without any intervening mark of punctuation, except in changed combinations as provided in Article 51.3. Two joint co-authors are separated by "&", three joint co-authors are separated by comma and "&". If a name was established by more than three co-authors, the name of the first author is followed by the term "et al.", the second and following authors are not cited with the name of the taxon.
It is my feeling or experience that if animals are described by more than 3 authors, we are too frequently dealing with undesired honorary authorships. Presence of 4 or more authors also increases problems in interconnections of electronic database networks.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Recomendation 51A should be modified:
The sentence "If the surname and forename(s) of an author are liable to be confused, these should be distinguished as in scientific bibliographies." should be removed.
(1) The statement "surnames AND fornames" is misleading und ambiguous. In this form it refers to cases where both can be confused, like C. Pfeiffer, these are two different authors who published on European non-marine molluscs. But these are usually not distinguished in bibliographies. Sometimes constructions like G. B. Sowerby I, II and III are used by some authors).
(2) The reference to bibliographies is not in accordance with the various currently applied standards in zoological disciplines. Scientific bibliographies follow different standards. Nearly all bibliographies set the forenames of the first author of a work behind the surname (Férussac, A. E. J.). Zoologists do it usually in reverse order. If this is ignored, the Recommendation is still ambiguous: should the author be given as A. Férussac, or as A. E. J. P. J. F. d'Audebard de Férussac, should it be O. Müller or O. F. Müller?
(3) The sentence suggests that adding initials to surnames of authors in taxon name author strings are desired. In the electronic age of biodiversity informatics the initials in zoological taxon names have been identified as a major obstacle to interconnecting database resources in biodiversity networks. It is very difficult for computer programs to identify O. F. Müller, O.F. Müller, OF Müller, O. Müller, Müller O. F. and Müller as the same name. Worse are combinations such as H. & A. Adams (= Adams & Adams). Since electronic databases emerged, adding initials has created more problems than it has solved.
(4) The Recommendation misses to define a common standard to be used. It is unclear WHEN the author is liable to be confused. In some disciplines authors use initials only if authors published at the same time (they regard the year as sufficient for disambiguation), in others only if two authors have both established names of taxa (not if an author has only published ecological works), in some disciplines also the region is important (Australian authors are ignored in Europe), while in other disciplines almost any author who has published in a field is considered as liable for confusion.
The best way to proceed today is not to use any initials in the names of taxa, consistently in all animal groups.
I would favour a mandatory Article to express that authors in taxonomic names should not have initials, and that if it is desired to disambiguate an author who is likely to be confunded, this should be done verbally.
Example: Hydrachna undulata Müller, 1776 (author is O. F. Müller, not P. L. Statius Müller).
Equally important is the disambiguation of different publications by the same author (because many scientists consider author and year primarily as a reference to the publication in which the name was established, the person identity of the author is considered as of secondary importance). Another example could be given to show a form of citation how to diambuguate these if necessary:
Example: Medusa umbella Müller, 1776 (published in Beschäftigungen der Berlinischen Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde 2, not in Zoologiæ Danicæ prodromus).
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Recommendation 51G should be removed.
Such combinations are practically not used any more in zoology, only in botany. In zoology they are misleading, they would provoke misunderstandings and enhance difficulties in electronic biodiversity networks. Today such a procedure should rather be discouraged and not recommended.
If it is desired to cite both the author of a species-group nominal taxon and the person who first transferred it to another genus (which is not a nomenclatural act and the first author is not recorded in most disciplines), this should be done verbally in a form that would not provoke misunderstandings.