[Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 2:09 AM

> Sorry, mental hiccup there - orthography = spelling, correct 
> orthography = correct spelling

> (before anyone corrects me)

*** 
Well, not really. Obviously "orthography" is an English word,
and as such has a certain meaning. I am not particularly certain 
what this meaning is (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/orthography)
although by its etymology one would indeed expect it to deal
with correct spelling.

However, 1) in botanical nomenclature it carries its own meaning,
which is restricted to the name itself. Probably it is a little wider
than spelling (Art. 61.2 "orthographical variants are the various 
spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms ..."), depending 
on how one defines "spelling". Representing authors is called 
"author citation"; and Rec. 46A and 46B deal with how 
individual names of authors are to be represented.

2) You were dealing with the difference between
Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb  versus
Prunus dulcis Mill. ex D.A. Webb   
In a general sense, this is not a matter of spelling but of 
composition (what to include and what not to include).

As a matter of general policy I have always found it to be 
advisable not to use specialized terminology, unless it is 
exactly fitting in that particular context. Otherwise, 
confusion will likely ensue. It would not have hurt you 
to say something like:

    "Prunus dulcis Mill. ex D.A.Webb is the correct 
     way to write/represent this"

instead, which would have avoided unnecessary use
of terminology. Looks much safer to me.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Sent: Friday, 16 September 2011 10:05 AM
> To: dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Just one small point:
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > However, orthography means spelling of the name and refers
> > to "Prunus dulcis", not to the author citation.
> 
> Actually, orthography simply means "correct spelling" so could equally
> apply to the authority component (authography maybe...)
> 
> I was meaning in the broader sense correct / consistent representation,
> not restricted to spelling alone, of the authority component, something
> which is a bane to storage and comparison of taxonomic names in general
> in information systems, so maybe orthography is not the best choice of
> term in this context, but there is no reason to restrict the use of the
> term to the scientific name portion, so far as I can see.
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
> > Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2011 5:24 PM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?
> >
> > From: <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:36 AM
> > [...]
> > >  Prunus dulcis Mill. ex D.A. Webb   - expressing that Webb's
> > > work is the first valid publication of Miller's name, previously
> > > not validly published.
> >
> > ***
> > That would be correct, except that it is a little odd to describe
> this
> > as "Miller's name".
> > * * *
> >
> > > On the other hand if the intention was simply to refer to a new
> > > combination (change in genus placement) or change of rank,
> > > Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb would be the correct
> > > orthography (probably what is intended here).
> >
> > ***
> > Just about. As Prunus dulcis is a combination based on
> > Amygdalus dulcis Mill. (1768) that is indeed the intent here.
> > However, orthography means spelling of the name and refers
> > to "Prunus dulcis", not to the author citation.
> >
> > Prunus dulcis [Mill.] D.A.Webb would, under pre-1972 versions
> > of the Code, refer to a name validly published by Webb inspired
> > by a pre-1753 publication of Miller.
> >
> > Using this for a new combination is not to be discouraged, but is
> > disallowed (Art. 49.1) and has been disallowed since the
> > Cambridge Code (so, for some eighty years, or to put it
> > differently, for as long as there have been validly published
> > names, historically, that is, not nomenclaturally).
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here