Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] Problem with authors of taxa

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Aug 13 15:53:33 CDT 2017 

You are assuming a difference between an author and an "external person", but the problem goes away if you consider the "external person" to be an author of the new taxon description. I don't think that there is any requirement for all authors of a work to be listed as such at the start of the work.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 13/8/17, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Problem with authors of taxa
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Sunday, 13 August, 2017, 9:54 PM
 
 Art. 50 was modified in the 4th
 ed. of the Code, hence an interpretation 
 dating from a time when the 3rd ed. was in
 force is potentially problematic.
 
 
 3rd. ed. (1985):
 50(a) -- "If it is clear from the contents
 of the publication that only 
 one of joint
 authors, or some other person, is alone responsible both 
 for the name and for satisfying the criteria of
 availability other than 
 publication, then
 that person is the author of the name."
 
 4th ed. (1999):
 50.1. -- "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 [...],
 then 
 that person is the author
 [...]."
 50.1.1. -- "However, if it
 is clear from the contents that some person 
 other than an author of the work is alone
 responsible both for the name 
 [...] and for
 satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual
 
 publication, then that other person is the
 author of the name [...]."
 
 
 The current version treats
 cases where a name is declared authored by 
 one of the authors of the work (e.g., Jones in
 Jones & Smith) 
 differently than cases
 where the declared author is external (e.g., 
 Jakes in Jones & Smith). In the first
 situation (50.1.), simple evidence 
 that the
 declared author was responsible *for the name* is enough to
 
 restrict the authorship. (Citing the
 author's name after a new species 
 name
 does the job.) In the second situation (50.1.1.), you need
 evidence 
 that the external person was
 responsible for the name AND *for 
 satisfying the criteria of availability other
 than actual publication* 
 to make the
 external person the author. (Typically, this means evidence
 
 that both the name and the description that
 made it available were 
 supplied by the
 external person.)
 
 Back in
 1994, the article that was in force did not make any such
 
 distinction; it required evidence that the
 declared author was 
 "responsible both
 for the name and for satisfying the criteria of 
 availability other than publication" in
 both situations.
 
 Thus it
 appears that, for cases like "Ribeiro & Buckup in
 Ribeiro, 
 Buckup, Gomes &
 Araujowas", Ng's interpretation was possible in
 1994, 
 but is not any more...
 
 
 Cheers,
 Laurent -
 
 
 On 08/13/2017 09:17 AM, Stefano Taiti wrote:
 > Dear all,
 > 
 > I would like to point out a problem with
 the authors of new taxa when 
 > these are
 only part of  the authors of the paper in which the new
 taxa 
 > are described.
 > 
 > In a paper by
 Crandall  & De Grave on "An updated classification
 of the 
 > freshwater crayfishes
 (Decapoda: Astacidea) of the world, with a 
 > complete species list" published this
 week in the Journal of Crustacean 
 >
 Biology (on line) (see 
 > <https://academic.oup.com/jcb/article/doi/10.1093/jcbiol/rux070/4060680/An-updated-classification-of-the-freshwater>https://academic.oup.com/jcb/article/doi/10.1093/jcbiol/rux070/4060680/An-updated-classification-of-the-freshwater
 
 > ) at p. 7 they write:
 > 
 > "Ng (1994) laid
 down the foundation of author citation in decapod 
 > literature,
 > which
 since has been followed in all major compilations of
 decapod
 > higher level taxonomy (De Grave
 et al., 2009), brachyuran crabs (Ng et al.,
 > 2008), anomurans (Baba et al., 2008;
 McLaughlin et al., 2010a; 2010b), 
 >
 lobsters
 > (Chan, 2010), and shrimps (De
 Grave & Fransen, 2011). This follows
 > a strict interpretation of Article 50
 (ICZN, 1999) in that merely citing an
 >
 author's name after a new species name does not make it
 explicit enough
 > that the description is
 solely by that/those person(s). Rather, it 
 > requires either
 > a
 specific statement to that effect, or as is common in older
 
 > literature, a clear
 > line of evidence that parts of the article
 were written by, and can thus be
 >
 formally attributed to a person(s) other than the author(s)
 of the article.
 > For example, we
 attribute Cambarus setosus to Faxon & Garman in
 Garman,
 > 1889, rather than just Faxon
 alone, as listed in Hobbs (1974b). This 
 > problem
 > is not
 restricted to older literature as often thought, with for
 example,
 > Ribeiro, Buckup, Gomes &
 Araujo (2016) describing "Parastacus fluviatilis
 > Ribeiro & Buckup sp. nov." and
 "Parastacus caeruleodactylus Ribeiro & 
 > Araujo
 > sp. nov."
 By following Ng (1994), the citation of these names becomes
 far
 > less cumbersome, for example P.
 fluviatilis Ribeiro, Buckup, Gomes & Araujo
 > (2016) rather than P. fluviatilis Ribeiro
 & Buckup in Ribeiro, Buckup, 
 >
 Gomes
 > & Araujo (2016). We accept
 that this is not how Article 50 is uniformly 
 > interpreted
 > across
 the zoological community and others may disagree. Because
 > all other compilations in the taxonomy of
 decapods have followed this 
 > format,
 > it seems logical to employ the same rule
 to bring the crayfish taxonomic
 >
 literature in line with the prevailing viewpoint in decapod
 nomenclature."
 > 
 > The interpretation of the Art. 50 of the
 ICZN by these authors seems to 
 > be
 peculiar since in the cited papers it is quite explicit (it
 is 
 > written!) that the authors of the
 new species are only some and not all 
 >
 the authors of the paper (see also Recommendation 50A).
 > 
 > Since nowadays it is
 quite common to see examples like those reported 
 > above, I am wondering which is the right
 way to cite the authors of 
 > these
 species. If anyone can interpret Art. 50 as they prefer, it
 will 
 > be a real mess.
 > 
 > Any opinion on this
 case will be appreciated.
 > 
 > Thanks,
 > 
 > Stefano Taiti
 > 
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 >
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: 
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > 
 > Send Taxacom mailing
 list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
 visit: 
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > You can reach the person managing the list
 at: 
 > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > 
 > Nurturing Nuance
 while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
 
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Send Taxacom mailing list
 submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 You can reach the person managing the list at:
 taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 
 Nurturing Nuance while
 Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list