Talk:Author citation (botany)

message: Shouldn't the references to the St. Louis Code be revised - this is now superseded by the Vienna code http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm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

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  sec. auct. 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  self-evident 

message: "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)
replies: text: Agree. This requires a citation. Hesperian 04:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Unknowing authorities 

message: 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)
thread_title: comb. nov. ined.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, fearless attempt at a re-write now in place as at todayTony1212 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Well, I added nomenclature codes to the see also section per your suggestion. jonkerz♠ 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer to expand / restructure this page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Years of author citations