Taxacom: Fwd: Two or more authors: language

[Tony Rees]

My feeling (which I believe is correct) is that botanical tradition is to
use a bit more Latin than zoological tradition (these days). So a botanical
work is more likely to say (e.g.) Smith et Jones, 1905, while a zoological
work would use Smith & Jones, 1905. For my compendium, which spans both
botanical and zoological names (the latter outnumber the former by around
4:1), I standardise everything to a single format, using "&" and not "et"
to link names together ("et al." being an exception).

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C81e552217fa84575dc1608ddd4c2cd5e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638900655322382977%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ktQSTnnWW6bdZApw%2FvXiKqdkmPPCKo4ys8oYZK1buWs%3D&reserved=0


On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 17:08, Mikhail Daneliya via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> In cases when there are two or more authors for a taxon I have been using
> "et" instead of common "&" or "and" to harmonize the language. For example,
> Paramblyops rostrata Holt et Tattersall, 1905, instead of Paramblyops
> rostrata Holt & Tattersall, 1905.
> What do you think?
> Should it be used in the same format, like it was used originally? Or can
> it be freely modified? Can it be used for newly names?
>
> I hope I made it clear.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Mikhail Daneliya
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>
>
>