Taxacom: Order Anura - correct authorship?

[Stephen Thorpe]

 This is precisely why using authorship for purely disambiguation purposes is hopelessly and unnecessarily complicated!
    On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 06:31:54 pm NZDT, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Returning to the subject of my original post - The AMNH Amphibian Species of the World database, version 6.1 as at today, has this to say about "Anura" and apparently related names (subset of a very large number of names above family rank applicable to frogs). For some reason that I cannot imagine, the authors of this system decline to give an authorship for "Anura" as an accepted order. So, once again I throw this back to the community of Taxacom for any advice and assistance that may be available in selecting a preferred authorship for "Anura"...----------------------Anoures?Dum?ril, 1805, Zool. Analyt. Meth. Nat. Class. Anim.: 91, 93. Unavailable family-group name for frogs within Dum?ril's order Batracii.?Dubois, 2004, Alytes,?22: 1?14, regarded this as the original use of Anura, but?Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de S?, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.,?297: 357, who beyond the fact that this is an?explicit?family-group name, saw no justification in recognizing non-Latin names in ranks not regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.?Dubois and Raffa?lli, 2012, Alytes,?28: 86, and?Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 253, continued to argue for this being the oldest available name for the taxon composed of all frogs, avoiding Dumeril's own words that this is the "Famille. Anoures".

Anuri?Fischer von Waldheim, 1813, Zoognosia Tab. Synopt. Ill., Ed. 3, 1: 58. Unranked taxon (above family-group) for frogs. Identical in content to Fischer von Waldheim's Ecaudati. Presumably a reranking and latinization of Anoures Dum?ril, 1806, an unavailable family-group name.

Anuria?Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nat.: 78. Suborder for frogs. Presumably a reranking and latinization of Anoures Dum?ril, 1806.

Anoura?Gray, 1825, Ann. Philos., London, Ser. 2,?10: 213. Explicit order for all frogs, attributed to Dum?ril and considering Salientia Laurenti to be a synonym (although Laurenti's Salientia included?Proteus). A reranking and latinization of Anoures Dum?ril, 1806.

Anura?Hogg, 1839, Mag. Nat. Hist., N.S.,?3: 270. Explicit order for frogs. Presumably an emendation of Anoura Gray, 1825, although possibly a reranking and latinization of Anoures Dum?ril, 1806.

Anoures?Dum?ril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: plate opposite page 53. Non-Latin suborder for frogs. Presumably a reranking of Anoures Dum?ril, 1806.

Anouri?Mayer, 1849, Verh. Naturhist. Ver. Preuss. Rheinlande,?6: 198. Suborder for frogs. Presumably a latinization of Anoures Dum?ril, 1806, or of Dum?ril and Bibron, 1841.

Anura?Lichtenstein and Martens, 1856, Nomencl. Rept. Amph. Mus. Zool. Berol.: 36. Order for frogs. Presumably a subsequent usage of Anura Hogg, 1839.

Anura?Romer, 1945, Vert. Paleontol., Ed. 2: 592. Order of superorder Salientia to contain living frogs.

Anura?Ford and Cannatella, 1993, Herpetol. Monogr.,?7: 99. Group of frogs defined as the last common ancestor of living frogs and all of the descendants of that species.
-------------------------
- Tony

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 16:04, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

Yes Stephen, one could do that, with a certain amount of re-engineering (not under my control any more in this case)... however 99%+ of the time the "name+author+year" system does work (which is why it has been adopted as the de facto standard in virtually all taxonomic data systems as well as the taxonomic literature) - e.g. in the example given above, the crustacean order is Decapoda Latreille, 1802 while the cephalopod order is Decapoda Leach, 1818 (now Teuthoidea - or possibly Teuthida - Naef, 1916 (Teuthida is accepted in ITIS at this time but not in WoRMS, more on that would be a separate thread...)
Go e.g. to ION/Zoological Record and you will find "name+author+year" as de facto taxon identifiers, same in Neave, same in Global Names Index, same in ITIS, same in GBIF, etc. etc. At least some attempt at standardization in these matters is clearly helpful :) There are a few instances where such a construct is not unique, where?indeed some workarounds are required - e.g. in my case I tend to use name|| ||authority, name|| ||authority|| [2] and so on, others may have their own preference...
Regards - Tony

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 15:31, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 One could disambiguate homonyms in other ways, e.g. Decapoda (Crustacea) vs. Decapoda (Cephalopoda). What you actually need is a separate disambiguation field associated with each name in your database. Sometimes, you can disambiguate by author, sometimes by parent taxon or anything else that does the job.Stephen
    On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 04:34:57 pm NZDT, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 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