Taxon authorship: a purely theoretical question

in references to _na_statistics_, very often the last name is preceded by And (and). this is probably the case here, too. If the taxon was described not by 1 or 2 people, but by three.

Who is strong in nomenclature?

I often see this form of attribution for taxa:

Title Author1, Author2, Author3 & Author4 year

For example, we take an arbitrary species from the 2003 Catalog of Palearctic Coleoptera.

Nebrioporus croceus Angus, Fresneda & Fery, 1993:298

At first I thought that commas separate independent works(but for some reason without a year), but no. This is how authors from one publication are listed.

It reads "Angus, Freshneda, and the Fae who joined them".

It is easy to find such examples, they are often found

Does anyone know the motivation behind this form of recording? This is such a standard, where is it described, in what article? As I understand it, this catalog should adhere
to MKZN Unfortunately, I only have the Russian edition of MKZN 2004. There is no such thing.

What's the problem?
The author (s) of the taxon are the authors of the paper that provides the first description of the taxon. There can only be one such article. If a given taxon was published by several authors in different articles, only the author of the article that was published earlier is written after the name of the species. All other authors go into synonyms.
If there are several authors in the first description article and the description of a taxon does not specify who specifically describes this taxon, then all authors are listed in the taxon name in the order of authors of the article. However, the article may specify the authors of the taxon: one of the authors, several specific authors, and the order of authors can be changed.
This is all from the literature, I can't refer to the points of the code, I didn't look at it.

What if the article has four authors? The ICZN generally states that there should be one or more authors who are directly responsible for the title, and other co-authors are not included. The order can be changed and it doesn't matter which author counts in the publication.
So the question is, what is the status of those names that are listed with such authorship that does not meet the ICZN standard?

This post was edited by Seneka - 18.07.2015 17: 50

But that wasn't the question. Let there be at least ten of them. The question was about a strange set of commas and & in the taxon name. As I understand it, the rules of the ICZN and the rules of registration of references in individual journals are completely different things. I would like to find in the ICZN that it explicitly says - "take the link design from the publication", but there is no such thing and will not be

If you can find the number of the ICZN article, I'll also check it out.
This is me on the previous post.
The question is & ? I just realized that.
But sometimes initials are also indicated, which is also unacceptable, and they write.
Try to do everything according to the code and there will be no questions for you.

This post was edited by Djon - 18.07.2015 17: 51

I corrected it there, and you wrote it closer to the text. Article 50. Recommendation 50A. page, if matched, 95

If you can find the number of the ICZN article, I'll also check it out.
This is me on the previous post.
The question is & ? I just realized that.
But sometimes initials are also indicated, which is also unacceptable, and they write.
Try to do everything according to the code and there will be no questions for you.

Initials are allowed for unique combinations-Article 51, Recommendation 51A

You can also shorten the names of specific authors, unless this is a well-established traditional and well-known abbreviation. I.e., it is not automatically allowed for everyone. I can't find the article.

Nothing is said about commas and & ...
There are only examples with two authors X & Y, year

In general, this is not a problem if we assume that this form of entry indicates that the author is not explicitly indicated in the text of the article. It's just that this is such a clever way of presenting it, and it doesn't affect its validity. We will assume that this is the custom.

This post was edited by Seneka - 18.07.2015 18: 34

If you can find the number of the ICZN article, I'll also check it out.
This is me on the previous post.
The question is & ? I just realized that.
But sometimes initials are also indicated, which is also unacceptable, and they write.
Try to do everything according to the code and there will be no questions for you.

Why are initials unacceptable? Recommendation 51A: "If it is necessary to distinguish authors with the same surname in order to avoid confusion, their names may be added (in full or abbreviated form), as in scientific bibliographies."

Why are initials unacceptable? Recommendation 51A: "If it is necessary to distinguish authors with identical surnames in order to avoid confusion, their names may be added (in full or abbreviated form), as in scientific bibliographies."

You're right, but I meant when the authors have different surnames. Not long ago I came across three authors, all with different surnames and initials of only two. Surprised me
Between second and third &

In general, this is not such a big problem, if we assume that this form of writing indicates that the author is not clearly highlighted in the text of the article. Just the presentation method, it doesn't affect the validity. We will assume that this is the custom.

What does the recording form indicate?

What does the recording form indicate?

If the author was singled out, i.e. an article with many authors explicitly says which of them is the author of the taxon name, then the author would be one. If there is more than one author, it indicates exactly what I wrote about

If the author was singled out, i.e. an article with many authors explicitly says which of them is the author of the taxon name, then the author would be one. If there are more than one author, then it literally indicates what I wrote about

You have already been told above that there can be many authors of an article (for example, 10 people), and there can be two, three, or even one authors of a taxon described in the same article. In publications, the taxon author(s) are always highlighted, and the editor takes care of this. There is no situation when, as you wrote, "the author is not clearly highlighted in the text of the article." Or give an example.

You have already been told above that there can be many authors of an article (for example, 10 people), and there can be two, three, or even one authors of a taxon described in the same article. In publications, the taxon author(s) are always highlighted, and the editor takes care of this. There is no situation when, as you wrote, "the author is not clearly highlighted in the text of the article." Or give an example.

You are wrong, the editor is not always following this, has followed it, or will continue to do so.

Who is strong in nomenclature?
Does anyone know the motivation behind this form of recording?

ie why not X, Y, Z, year
and not X & Y & Z, year
namely X, Y & Z, year
This is such a standard, where is it described, in what article? As I understand it, this catalog should adhere
to MCZN Unfortunately, I only have the Russian edition of the MCZN 2004, there is no such thing.

Is this exactly regulated by the MCZN? I suspect that the authors are simply listed according to the rules of natural language (?Latin) - "X, Y et Z, year". The Code generally recommends the form " X et al., year "(Recommendation 51C). Although I have never encountered such a form of recording in practice.

You're right, but I meant when the authors have different surnames. Not long ago I came across three authors, all with different surnames and initials of only two. Surprised me
Between the second and third &

Well, as I understand it, here is something like Lee, Chang and Tscherezzabornoguzaderistschenko

 
I suspect that the authors are simply listed according to the rules of natural language (?Latin) - "X, Y et Z, year".

"
If in Latin it is so correct, from the point of view of natural language, to do enumerations, then this is a strong argument.

This post was edited by Seneka - 18.07.2015 19: 03

You have already been told above that there can be many authors of an article (for example, 10 people), and there can be two, three, or even one authors of a taxon described in the same article. In publications, the taxon author(s) are always highlighted, and the editor takes care of this. There is no situation when, as you wrote, "the author is not clearly highlighted in the text of the article." Or give an example.

You are wrong, the editor is not always following this, has followed it, or will continue to do so.

Everything is clear with the editor, but what does your "the author is not clearly highlighted in the text of the article" mean?

Everything is clear with the editor, but what does your "the author is not clearly highlighted in the text of the article" mean?

What is the purpose of your interest? I've already explained my guess about the form, and you've already read it.

As for the example, in this not-so-old article, the authors explicitly indicate the status of new species, but nowhere in the article do they mention the combination of the taxon name with their authorship, nor do they specify which of them is the author of these taxa. There is no doubt that all these authors of the article are the authors of the listed taxa, so these taxa are mentioned everywhere with this spelling of their authorship, although in the text of the article the authors decided, apparently for aesthetic reasons, not to give this combination in this form. And so everything is clear.

Coxoplectoptera Stanizcek, Bechly & Godunko, 2011
Mickoleitia longimanus Stanizcek, Bechly & Godunko, 2011 typus

http://www.bernstein.naturkundemuseum-bw.d...plectoptera.pdf

This post was edited by Seneka - 18.07.2015 20: 11

Is this exactly regulated by the MCZN? I suspect that the authors are simply listed according to the rules of natural language (?Latin) - "X, Y et Z, year". The Code generally recommends the form " X et al., year "(Recommendation 51C). Although I have never encountered such a form of recording in practice.

I Googled it... on the subject of natural language. Such a rule, rather, came from English and was transferred to Latin. In English, this is a common form of listing "Famine, despair, cold, thirst and heat had done their work on them". Without "and" it is not accepted, as everywhere else, to insert "and" instead of commas, also stylistically incorrect. "Zeugma" is called... In general, here is the answer to the question from my first post.

This post was edited by Seneka - 18.07.2015 21: 28

What is the purpose of your interest? I've already explained my guess about the form, and you've already read it.

As for the example, in this not-so-old article, the authors explicitly indicate the status of new species, but nowhere in the article do they mention the combination of the taxon name with their authorship, nor do they specify which of them is the author of these taxa. There is no doubt that all these authors of the article are the authors of the listed taxa, so these taxa are mentioned everywhere with this spelling of their authorship, although in the text of the article the authors decided, apparently for aesthetic reasons, not to give this combination in this form. And so everything is clear.

Coxoplectoptera Stanizcek, Bechly & Godunko, 2011
Mickoleitia longimanus Stanizcek, Bechly & Godunko, 2011 typus

http://www.bernstein.naturkundemuseum-bw.d...plectoptera.pdf

I am interested to see an article in which "the author is not clearly highlighted". In this article, the authors of all the taxa described are clearly highlighted.

I am interested to see an article in which "the author is not clearly highlighted". In this article, the authors of all the taxa described are clearly highlighted.

Seek and find.

   Seek and find.

Obviously, you don't have an example where "the author is not explicitly highlighted in the text of the article".

I Googled it... on the subject of natural language. Such a rule, rather, came from English and was transferred to Latin. In English, this is a common form of listing "Famine, despair, cold, thirst and heat had done their work on them". Without "and" it is not accepted, as everywhere else, to insert "and" instead of commas, also stylistically incorrect. "Zeugma" is called... In general, here is the answer to the question from my first post.

Probably, although in English, a comma is also placed before the union in enumerations: "Famine, despair, cold, thirst, and heat had done their work on them"

This post was edited by Fornax13-19.07.2015 01: 06

Yes, no, we are probably talking about cases when the article describes a new taxon with approximately the same form of entry -

Papiliio glomerator sp. nov.

Is this the case when the author is "not highlighted"?
In this case, the authorship of the taxon is automatically recorded by the spelling and order of the authors of the article.

Yes, no, we are probably talking about cases when the article describes a new taxon with approximately the same form of entry -

Papiliio glomerator sp. nov.

Is this the case when the author is "not highlighted"?
In this case, the authorship of the taxon is automatically recorded by the spelling and order of the authors of the article.

Yes, although that wasn't exactly what I meant.

The main goal of MCZN is to maintain the stability of the nomenclature. The Code does not interfere with or restrict scientific activity, and the attribution of taxon authorship does not in any way challenge the authorship of the authors of articles on their scientific results. However, the current trend of scientific research is such that science is becoming collective and the number of collective works with a large number of authors is growing. At the same time, the number of newly described taxa is growing, which in a short time will lead to a large number of taxa with long collective authorship, if their number in the taxon name is not specifically limited. In addition, teams are constantly changing, people move from one team to another and continue to write articles and describe new species.
In this case, the process of comparing authorship becomes, firstly, fuzzy, because it is based on comparing sets, and secondly, a purely formal process, divorced from reality. Although initially it was not formal, but really required finding out a real individual.
This situation contradicts the main goals of the code (which are purely practical, not scientific), i.e. it does not contribute to the stability and convenience of the nomenclature.

Therefore, the code contains such recommendations. I don't have the code at hand right now, so I'll tell you what it means in my own words.

1. If possible, identify the author who is directly responsible for identifying the new species. Exaggeratedly, who is the leader who is responsible for this, who sat at the microscope and described the view?

In this case, the taxon name will have the following format:

Author's name in collectivepublication, year

At the same time, only one author has authorship per taxon.

2. If this is not possible, i.e. the work was done with a deep integration of the authors ' intellectual efforts, then it is recommended to still write one-the first author of the article, but in a different form.

Title Author1 et al., year

At the same time, all authors of the article have authorship for the taxon

3. If there is no such possibility, then the authorship is written in full (where you can use & instead of et, if desired)

Title Author1, Author2, Author3, Author4, Author5, Author6, Author7, Author8, Author9, Author10 & Author11, Year

but this form only flatters the vanity of these authors and does not contribute to the convenience of other scientists ' work.

since these authors themselves never indicate such a combination of the taxon name and authorship directly in the work, except for the list of authors in the title of the article, "in this case, the authorship of the taxon is automatically recorded according to the spelling and order of the authors of the article."

I repeat, from the Codex's point of view, reducing the number of authors in a taxon name does not affect the collective authorship of the scientific results described in the publication, but this reduction is attributed to the authors themselves, and not done by someone else. That is, ideally, authors would have to explicitly write a combination of the taxon name and their own authorship,at least once, in order to record the form of its use by others.

This post was edited by Seneka - 20.07.2015 13: 33

What you wrote is confusing and, to be honest, it's not very clear what it's about. You write articles in threes - and describe a new type of threesome. I would like to indicate who made the largest contribution out of 3 (4,5...) authors, then you can also indicate their authorship.
For example, the authors of the article are A, B and B.
In the name of a new species, if you really take it right, then you should write the Genus species A, B, C, sp. n.
If you want to show off or there are some real reasons, then you can give the authorship so
the Genus type B, A, B, sp. n.
or even so
the Genus type A, sp. n.
But the problem is different. It will be necessary at some point and someone will search for a link to your work with descriptions of this type, and after all, they will start looking not for A, B and C, 2015, but for B, A, B, 2015 or just A, 2015. This is a complete dead end.
And to write like this-Parent type B, B, A, 2015 c: A, B, C, 2015-this is not quite a healthy option.

If an extended article with many co-authors of different specializations describes a new taxon along the way, then authorship should be limited to those co-authors who actually described it. This is primarily the one who discovered the taxon when it was identified, and sometimes those who obtained important information on ecology and did complex analysis with understanding.
If this is not done, and the taxon's co-authors include managers, collectors, chemists, drivers, etc. who are not competent in these matters, then this indicates the inadequacy of not only the author's team, but also the editorial office of the publication where this is published. Since it is very inconvenient to give a taxon with more than 3 authors in the future. (takes up a lot of space and time). However, the Code is limited only to recommendations in this regard and cannot correct such mistakes.
Attribution of the taxon's authorship in the text is not an automatic reference to the work where the taxon was described. References are always given separately in accordance with the rules adopted in the publication. If there are no special references, then the work is not included in the list of references.
If you want to immediately provide a link to work with its description when mentioning a taxon, do this:
Genus species B et A, year (A et al., year). This is when the first author of the work is A, and the first author of the description itself is B.

There is a special competent opinion that the comma before the year should be put and not pay attention to this recommendation of the code, and "et al." was invented to align commas in an English sentence.

And whose "especially competent" about the comma before the year, if not a secret???
As far as I know, this is not done anywhere in the civilized world, except in our Zoo Magazine. It looks like it's just some high-ranking near-biological administrator's brain.
And there is no need for English approvals-et al. = and others. (and others) - a very rational reduction of authors (it happens that there are two dozen of them).

et al. "it's not English at all, it's Latin.

And whose "especially competent" about the comma before the year, if not a secret???
As far as I know, this is not done anywhere in the civilized world, except in our Zoo Magazine. It looks like it's just some high-ranking near-biological administrator's brain.
And there is no need for English approvals-et al. = and others. (and others) - a very rational reduction of authors (it happens that there are two dozen of them).

Secret, not mine.

And whose "especially competent" about the comma before the year, if not a secret???
As far as I know, this is not done anywhere in the civilized world, except in our Zoo Magazine. It looks like it's just some high-ranking near-biological administrator's brain.

Germans never put commas: Linzer biologische Beiträge, Entomofauna, for example. In Zootaxa, too, they don't put it, with rare exceptions (apparently, some editors like commas, and they deviate from the general norm). So, this is not our invention.

By the way, I now have a lot of photocopies of German works and individual books, from the 60s to the present day. And almost all the most authoritative authors have commas. I don't see any that aren't standing there...

Of course, you don't have to follow the code's recommendations. But the scientific community has a tradition of implementing or not implementing individual recommendations. Putting commas before years is obviously rational, which is why the vast majority of authors and editors support it. Not putting punctuation marks saves the number of characters (when there are strict limits on their number in articles ) and work on pressing keys (first typewriters, then modern tools). However, the author and year without a comma (as well as the dates of material collection) without punctuation marks looks simply ridiculous.

And Zootaxa is generally some kind of ugly product of the latest pseudo-Western "civilization". Everything is turned upside down there, and there are no signs of the editorial office's work.

And Zootaxa is generally some kind of ugly product of the latest pseudo-Western "civilization". Everything is turned upside down there, and there are no signs of the editorial office's work.

It depends on who the group editor is and how they feel about their responsibilities. For my group, everything is very much the opposite.

By the way, I now have a lot of photocopies of German works and individual books, from the 60s to the present day. And almost all the most authoritative authors have commas. I don't see any that aren't standing there...

Maybe you have a different selection. I looked at hundreds of articles in the two German publications listed above, but there were no commas anywhere (the authors were different, although there were not so many of them, no more than a dozen).

Of course, you don't have to follow the code's recommendations. But the scientific community has a tradition of implementing or not implementing individual recommendations. Putting commas before years is obviously rational, which is why the vast majority of authors and editors support it. Not putting punctuation marks saves the number of characters (when there are strict limits on their number in articles ) and work on pressing keys (first typewriters, then modern tools). However, the author and year without a comma (as well as the dates of material collection) without punctuation marks looks simply ridiculous.

As far as I remember, it is recommended not to separate the date from the authors with anything other than a comma, which can be understood in two ways: either separate it with a comma, or you can either not separate it, or, if you really separate it, then only with a comma. By the way, they (recommendations) are silent about the gap.

The main thing is that this is clearly spelled out in the journal's rules, and the editor monitors their implementation and compliance with uniformity. And there will always be discrepancies between publications and not only in commas, but also " et." and "&", for example.

This post was edited by Carcharot - 07/28/2015 09: 56

Obviously, you don't have an example where "the author is not explicitly highlighted in the text of the article".

Was this referring to chapter XI, article 51, recommendation 51A on anonymous authors?

This post was edited by Bianor - 07/28/2015 10: 19

Was this referring to chapter XI, article 51, recommendation 51A on anonymous authors?

This is a common case when there are authors of an article, and when describing a taxon, it is written "sp. n." without specifying the author. Then the authorship of the taxon automatically corresponds to the authorship of the article.
It is also often the case that the description still indicates one of the authors.
In addition, there are cases when the author of the described taxon is not listed at all among the authors of the work.
For example, the well-known jaundice C. crocea has long been cited with the author Fourcroy, who was the only author on the title page. Relatively recently, the authorship was corrected to Geoffroy, which is not on the title page, but apparently (I did not see the original source), its authorship is stipulated in the text. In these cases, the code recommends writing it with the prefix [in Fourcroy], i.e. you get a link to the work as part of the taxon name. But this is again a recommendation, so it is not mandatory.
I don't know about anonymous names describing taxa - I haven't encountered them - this could have happened at the dawn of printing as a rare exception or due to technical errors.