Taxacom: Order Anura - correct authorship?

[Tony Rees]

If we try to establish "prevailing recent usage", since 2000 Google Scholar
has 81 hits for "anura dumeril" versus 338 for "anura fischer". This may
change, perhaps, with a more recent start date, per the more recent
publications by Dubois... On the other hand, it would be interesting to
establish how many folk here or elsewhere agree with Dubois' analysis of
the situation, also bearing in mind that Dum?ril apparently did not use the
name in the same form (i.e., he used Anoures, not Anura).

- Tony

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 08:53, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen, your point is taken, however in this particular use case I
> wish to distinguish between the various instances of the name "Anura" in my
> database, and authorship is the principal method available... so at present
> I have:
>
> Anura (previously no authorship, "Dum?ril, 1805" added as a placeholder
> just now)
> Anura (S.V. Juzepczuk) O.V. Tscherneva, 1962 accepted as Cousinia Cassini
> in F. Cuvier, 1827 (Asteraceae)
> Anura Agassiz, 1846 accepted as Anoura Gray, 1838 (Chiroptera)
> Anura Bellardi, 1873 accepted as Pisanianura Rovereto, 1899
> (Littorinimorpha)
> Anura Hodgson, 1841 (uncertain) (Aves)
> Anura Nicolet, 1847 accepted as Neanura Macgillivray, 1893 (Poduromorpha)
>
> (In this case the first entry is at order rank, the others are genera, but
> in course that cannot always be presumed)
>
> So if I want to make a relationship between any other name and a
> particular instance of "Anura", I can see which one to choose.
>
> I note that ION also has another name instance, "Anura Fitz. 1843" which I
> have not yet investigated further.
>
> It does not bother me too much if "Anura Dum?ril, 1805", "Anura Dum?ril,
> 1805" and "Anura Fischer von Waldheim, 1813" (or just Anura Fischer,
> according to Dubois, since he was not a "von Waldheim" at the time) are all
> in circulation so long as they can be recognised as referring to the same
> taxonomic entity, however I would like to select one, perhaps according to
> the principle of "prevailing recent practice" if not absolute correctness,
> for use in my own system - and if justifiable, amend the relevant entries
> in Wikipedia and Wikispecies (which currently do not agree with each other)
> accordingly.
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 08:08, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> Tony said "I realise that the ICZN Code does not regulate names and/or
>> cited authorships above the rank of family (or more correctly,
>> family-group), however I was wondering whether anyone can assist me with
>> the "best" i.e. most correct authorship for the amphibian order Anura."
>>
>> I say: There is no "correct" authorship, precisely because it is not
>> regulated by the ICZN Code. There are bibliographic facts about where and
>> when the name appeared, but these facts have no relevance to taxonomy or
>> nomenclature. Priority does not apply. I do hate it when people fixate on
>> irrelevant details!
>>
>> Cheers, Stephen
>>
>>