This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't the references to the St. Louis Code be revised - this is now superseded by the Vienna code http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm (since 2005!)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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
rather than
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
rather than
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)