Taxacom: Order Anura - correct authorship?

[Tony Rees]

It might for now, but I also have some (other) genus names plus names at
other ranks without authorship, so it is not a general solution...

Separately, I have just remembered that the principle alluded to above of
"prevailing recent usages" applies to the name itself (where multiple
variants are in use), not to the ascribed authorship; if the latter is
wrong, it can simply be corrected; so my example counts previously given
via e.g. Google Scholar are a misdirection...

That said, my present inclination is to follow Dubois (2019, 2020) and
ascribe authorship of Anura to Dum?ril (1805 not 1806, thanks Neal), but
would be open to being persuaded otherwise if there are alternative views
around; also to update the Wikipedia and Wikispecies entries to read the
same (also maybe Wikidata, though not too familiar with that as yet).

Regards - Tony


On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 09:39, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> Hi Tony,
> Anura listed without authorship would distinguish it from the genera with
> authorship. So what's the problem with blank authorship?
> Cheers, Stephen
>
> On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 11:10:12 am NZDT, Tony Rees <
> tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>