Consultant reports and web pages as citable resources -- or not

[Barry Roth]

The situation I had in mind was where a taxon has been referred to in unpublished reports by a vernacular name or by a formula such as "Xus new species B."  The point of including that name and citation in a synonymy at the start of a published monographic account of the species would be to provide continuity -- perhaps particularly as an aid to the agencies that may have oversight responsibility for the taxon.
Granted, the equivalency could be stated in a sentence somewhere in the Remarks section, but is there any reason to prefer that over the efficiency of standard synonymy format to convey the same information?
Barry Roth
 Thomas Lammers <lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU> wrote:At 10:17 PM 11/10/02 -0800, Curtis Clark wrote:
>I'm not sure what you mean by "formal synonymies". It seems that either
>source could only generate nomina nuda, but if those are in use, they
>should be cited.

I prefer NOT to include names that are Not Validly Published (as defined by
ICBN) in the formal listing of nomenclature that usually starts off the
treatment of a species in a monographic account. They have no standing
under the Code and emphatically are NOT names as defined by the
Code. Instead, I would mention them in the text, saying, "Johnson (1878)
called this Planta alba but that name was never validated ..."


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD