Abbreviated spelling of taxon authors

Question two: is it correct to form such abbreviations yourself: for example, Vasil. - Vasilenko? Or should I write it in its entirety? There are also such long surnames (for example, Kirpichnikova) that you don't even know how to "cut".

Don't shorten it! Don't make life difficult for your readers! You are now solving these puzzles yourself.

Are there any rules for forming abbreviations, or is it enough to follow common sense and euphony?

As far as I know, everyone does it to the best of their ability. I had to struggle to write, for example, J. W. H. Rehn, Brunner von Wattenwyl. The editors stubbornly wanted to trim down to Rehn, Brunner (although I know at least two orthopterists, i.e. there is already confusion).

Third and last question: What should I do if there are many namesakes among the authors- (Jakovlev (Jak.) - bug hunter and Yakovlev-lepidopterologist)? Adding initials is only used if the namesakes worked in the same group?
I would be grateful for any information.

I don't know how to "do it right" - I don't think there are any rules. Write in full. In the case of namesakes, write with initials.

Don't shorten it!

Dvachuyu!

I agree with you about the uselessness of excessive abbreviations, but there are situations when you can't do without it (for example, well, it's not included in the table column, the editor is "not satisfied" with it, etc.). You have to use commonly used abbreviations, and for" less used " authors - give the full name.

I can advise you to take a thick respected book (a guide to the European part of the USSR, Fauna, if any) and shorten the authors, as in it. So, in any case, at least the confusion will not increase.

Yes, editors are a nuisance. It has always been a mystery to me where this desire to write in secret writing comes from.

That's what I do. Although in the definitions (different volumes of the same publication), the spelling of the same authors may vary: Sc. - Scop., Pk. - Payk.

But why do they still write all sorts of extra words like "von", "van", etc. along with the surname?

"J.W.H. Rehn, Brunner von Wattenwyl"

Why not just Rehn & Brunner?

After all, the authorship is not an individual author in this combination, but a collective one. The short combination, without further ado, is quite unique and understandable.

In other words, this abbreviated information should be enough to unambiguously indicate a specific printed work by formal comparison.

I didn't notice.....
"The editors stubbornly wanted to trim down to Rehn, Brunner (although I know at least two orthopterists, so there is already confusion)."

They were guided by traditional rules.

Formally, there is no confusion, because the authorship and year after taxon must meet first of all the requirements of uniqueness with maximum compactness and second of all the convenience of recognizing the author. (I made that up myself.)

This post was edited by Seneka - 26.01.2012 17: 06

But why do they still write all sorts of extra words like "von", "van", etc. along with the surname?

"J.W.H. Rehn, Brunner von Wattenwyl"

Why not just Rehn & Brunner?

After all, the authorship is not an individual author in this combination, but a collective one. The short combination, without further ado, is quite unique and understandable.

In other words, this abbreviated information should be enough to unambiguously indicate a specific printed work by formal comparison.

And why shorten it at all? To the best of my humble abilities, I try to fight the old bad tradition of writing incomprehensibly. I wonder where this" time-honored " encryption tradition came from? I suspect that it was from the XVIII-XIX centuries, when there were few taxonomists and everyone knew each other almost personally.

The more information you have, the fewer mistakes you make and the easier your life becomes. The same Rehn's were several people and all orthopterologists! And here is the author Sriv. - please love and favor. In India, 'Srivastava' is a very common surname, and the ZIN library catalog is no less than a catalog box.

I didn't notice.....
"The editors stubbornly wanted to trim down to Rehn, Brunner (although I know at least two orthopterists, so there is already confusion)."

They were guided by traditional rules.

What are these rules? Who invented them?

Formally, there is no confusion, because the authorship and year after taxon must meet first of all the requirements of uniqueness with maximum compactness and second of all the convenience of recognizing the author. (I made that up myself.)

And who needs this maximum compactness at the expense of meaning? I'm constantly working with directories and I'm fed up with: "Abhandl. Senckenb. naturf. Ges.", "Malay. Br. R. Asiat. Soc.", "Zool. Meded." and " J. Siam Soc., Nat. Hist. Suppl.". This is from "Princis K. Orth. Cat., 13, 1969".

PS. The topic is sick for me, because in the Works of ZIN I had to fight off the attacks of zealots of academic traditions.

That's what I do. Although in the definitions (different volumes of the same publication), the spelling of the same authors may vary: Sc. - Scop., Pk. - Payk.

And that, too.

And who needs this maximum compactness at the expense of meaning?

.
The meaning is in the article, not in the taxon's authorship line. The article must be unambiguously identified by the combination of these lines + the year.

"Abhandl%" and "Senckenb%" and "naturf%" and "Ges%" and year

Percentages mean " substring starts with ...".
Stupidly alphabetically check for such a combination in the catalog and that's it.
Author identification is not required for this operation.


I do not dispute that there are some combinations that can not be found, of course, you need to do something with them and set the authors ' brains straight.
If it is not possible to find it, then the link is indeed compiled incorrectly.

I am also against abbreviating words, but not against abbreviating verbose expressions. Of course, it is unpleasant to work with abbreviations, as well as with abbreviations that are essentially the same abbreviations, and not always correct.

As for "The more information, the fewer mistakes and easier life."...
On the contrary, the more information there is, the more likely there are errors(typos and spellings) in this information, more precisely in the data and not in the information. Even the law probably exists in information theory...

.

Yes, of course, everything can be found and everything is uniquely (more or less) identified.

But! Why waste time on this? I'm not interested and I don't enjoy deciphering this gibberish, and the time in the library can be spent more usefully.

You yourself wrote: "it's unpleasant to work with abbreviations....". So I'm talking about the same thing - if there is such an opportunity, it's better to write everything in full.

By the way, in a broader sense. If you want to convey something to the reader in a publication, always write directly and preferably several times. Everything that can be misunderstood is exactly what they will understand!

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 26.01.2012 22: 37

Dear entomologists, please tell me where you can find the most complete list of authors of insect taxa (especially Coleoptera, Lepidoptera) and correct spelling of abbreviated versions of their surnames.

Here you go: Taxon Authorities - Wikispecies