Talk:Author citation (botany)

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't the references to the St. Louis Code be revised - this is now superseded by the Vienna code http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm (since 2005!)

BrianDaubach10 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sec. auct.

What is the meaning of this abbreviation ? I could not find it on the World Wide Web. E.g. see here: Centaurium erythraea Rafn @ Euro+Med Plantbase

Might be necessary to add the meaning to the article body.

Mike abc (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"sec." means "according to" (normally to distinguish between taxon concepts for the same nominal taxon) and "auct." is short for "auctorum" = "of authors" [different from the original author]. So "auct." or sometimes "auctt." (without the "sec.") means the same thing, I think... Tony 1212 (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

self-evident

in Pinus koraiensis Siebold & Zucc., Siebold is self-evident and the co-author is Zuccarini.

Is Siebold really self-evident here? We can't assume the reader would know which Siebold. According to IPNI, "Siebold" refers to "Philipp Franz (Balthasar) von Siebold 1796-1866". But IPNI also lists a "C.Siebold", which refers to "Carl Theodor Ernst von Siebold 1804-1885". Without the IPNI, the reader would have no way of knowing that information, thus it is not self-evident. Am I wrong? --Dforest 11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknowing authorities

"Note that this person is not necessarily involved in any way with the plant(s) concerned (he or she need not have seen the plant or even be able to recognise it), but is accepted as having published the botanical name."

Precisely how is the author to have "validly published" without knowing anything about the plant or "even [being] able to recognize it?" What authors have published in such manner? This is patently absurd enough on the surface that if true it requires an explanation and an example of such an occurence, or should be ommitted as beyond the realm of the generalist. If this occurs in the case of vanity authorities, then that could simply be explained in the article. Inclusion of difficult and obscure information makes this article less usable to the lay public.

Tokyo Code:

"32.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon ... must: (a) be effectively published ... (b) have a form which complies with the provisions of [various articles] (c) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis ..."

How can an author who is unable to "recognise" a plant publish validly within the guidelines that the name "be accompanied by a description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis?" How could the author write a description or reference a description of a plant he/she cannot recognize? Again this must be explained and an example given to clarify this information for the layman.

KP Botany 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This requires a citation. Hesperian 04:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only case I can see is a reference using "ex". Or a synonym (which, if memory serves me, doesn'tneed to have been correctly published. Circeus 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Years in author citations

I have once again removed the years from the example citations. The ICBN does not support years in author citations. If you see it used, it is either an incorrect application of zoological nomenclature, or it is a bibliographic citation.

Regarding the latter, if using Harvard style bibliographic citations, it is acceptable to write

Banksia L.f. (1782)

rather than

Banksia L.f. (L.f. 1782)

Indeed the ICBN uses this form of bibliographic citation itself. But in such cases the year is merely a bibiographic citation; it is not part of the author citation.

This is crucial to the article, so let's get it right. Hesperian 04:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ICBN routinely uses years in author citations, as do quite a lot of botanical nomenclatural publications. This is logical as priority is THE guiding principle in nomenclature. For priority to be usefully applied it is required to cite a year of publication. Including years has nothing whatsoever to do with bibliography.

It is only true that the ICBN does not support years in author citations is that the ICBN does not expect such publications as Wikipedia to use author citations at all. That is not relevant here as this page is about how to cite, in the case the decision is made to cite at all. Years are crucial to the article.

BTW I have never seen the form "Banksia L.f. (L.f. 1782)". That form of citation would be truely weird. Clyb 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the author citation refers to the person or persons who published a name, not the year nor the place of publication. How could it be any more clear? The year of publication is not part of the author citation any more than the name of the journal is. Neither of two ICBN articles explicitly dealing with author citation, Art. 46 & Art. 49.1, say anything, even as a recommendation, about including the publication year in the author citation. The ICBN cites authors throughout both with and without year of publication but the first example given for author citations under Art. 46 omits the year of publication (see also ex. 8, which gives indicates the "appropriate" author citation without mentioning a year). If this does not make it abundantly clear, I don't know what does: the year of publication is not an integral part of the author citation. Just because the ICBN frequently (but not always!) follows the author citation by the year of publication does not make the latter part of the former.

Most botanical publications do not routinely include the year of publication, not only because it is cumbersome but because it is usually entirely unnecessary unless citing a complete synonymy with full bibliographic references, distinguishing homonyms or explicitly establishing priority of names. Including it in this article without explanation will simply confuse the reader. MrDarwin 01:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Brya, if you look at the ICBN's usage, you will find that it is precisely in accordance with the above factual statement that the dates are merely Harvard-style citations. Whenever the first occurrence of an author is separated from the taxon name, the year goes with the author. For example, Article 46 Ex. 17: "Lilium tianschanicum was described by Grubov (1977) as a new species and its name was ascribed to Ivanova; since there is no indication that Ivanova provided the validating description, the name may be cited as L. tianschanicum N. A. Ivanova ex Grubov or L. tianschanicum Grubov." What further proof could you want that these years are not part of the author citation? The fact is, the ICBN neither recommends nor uses years in author citations. Hesperian 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comb. nov. ined.

Where might I find a list of abbreviations such as "comb. nov. ined.", as in Dasiphora floribunda (Pursh) Kartesz comb. nov. ined., and their meaning, please? Is such content appropriate for this article? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to expand / restructure this page

As someone who has to decipher information suppied as "authorities" for botanical names (almost) every day, there are a number of items and complexities missing from this page that I feel would assist users. Also the only named sections "normal usage" and "multiple parts" are not really good indicators of the content contained in each. Would anyone object if I attempt a general re-write and expansion of this page along more atomised lines starting with the simplest example of an author citation and working up from there, describing all (most) of the possible complexities along the way, as well as correct/incorrect usages according to the Code? This could then be a resource I would be happy to point non-experts in the field of botanical nomenclature to in order to explain the various terms they might encounter, especially since it is hard to find this information elsewhere in a coordinated form. As an aside, the relevant page for zoology has much more information but could similarly benefit from a refocus / restructure at this time, and it would be nice to use e.g. this page as an attempt to achieve a good model for the other....Tony1212 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansions are always appreciated, especially from experts of the subject. If you believe a partial or complete re-write of the article will make it better, then be bold and go ahead and make the edit. Cheers, jonkerz ♠ 19:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fearless attempt at a re-write now in place as at todayTony1212 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! This helped me to understand the subject better, but there's still one thing that may need some clarification; if you look at the German article de:Autorenkürzel der Botaniker und Mykologen it seems like fungi are governed by the same code, but neither this nor Author citation (zoology) mentions anything about it. Also, what about other non-botany, non-zoology life-forms such as bacteria, viruses and single-celled algae? jonkerz ♠ 03:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonkerz, well, fungi and single celled algae are covered by the same code as plants, however bacteria and viruses have their own codes. This is already mentioned on the pages for "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" and "Nomenclature codes", so maybe does not need repeating here? Though a few more links to these in the "See also" section might be useful, I guess... Tony1212 (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well, I added nomenclature codes to the see also section per your suggestion. jonkerz ♠ 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also add corr.

Chondrodendron tomentosum RUIZ & PAVON corr. MIERS.

Please Always be explicit which author is first in term of time. --Connection (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years of author citations

When there are author citations utilizing the 'ex' as in

Nachtigalia Schinz ex Engl. -- Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 19(1): 133, nomen. 1894 [13 Apr 1894] (IK) [a citation from the International Plant Names Index)

does the date given refer to the earlier publication by Schinz or to the subsequent publication by Engler? ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCharters (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the date of Engler's publication (article 46.2). The publication is here. I think that IPNI means that this is the first time that Schinz's name was published, although Engler is clearly listing it as a synonym of Phaeoptilon spinosum. I'm not sure of IPNI's policies, but I think that names like that are sometimes given a "nom. inval. pro syn." comment, and then sometimes disappear from the database because IPNI doesn't list names that were never validly published. That assumes that Schinz actually never did publish the name ... Sorry that I can't be more definite about what is going on here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]