Taxacom: Order Anura - correct authorship?

[Tony Rees]

Hi Stephen, once again I agree with you to a point, but then differ: for
example, it is a fact that Blackburn & Wake, 2011 cite the order as Anura
Fischer von Waldheim, 1813. So one could give (on WikiXXX if desired) a
particular authorship "according to [wherever]"; and note any alternative
views as published. Just my take of course. Sometimes it becomes important,
for example according to my recollection there are 2 different orders
Decapoda, one a Crustacean group in current use, the other something else
(cephalopods? cannot remember), so once again authorship of the name in
question is a desirable feature.

Regards - Tony


On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 12:52, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> The problem with putting your preferred authorship on names like Anura on
> Wikimedia is that your preferred authorship is just that and not an
> objective fact because there is no such thing as authorship for such names.
> It is a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. There are no
> codified rules to define the authorship of such names. Nothing to say that
> the authorship is the first author. Nothing to say that the work in which
> the name was published must be published according to the Code, etc., etc.
> It is all just pointless dust in the wind.
> Stephen
>
>
>
>