Clarification on Index PLEASE

For completed articles/profiles that have been moved to the community site. (This archive will be saved, but is HIDDEN from non-moderators and Google to prevent visitors from coming here instead of the current site)

Moderator: LoachForumModerators

Post Reply
User avatar
Martin Thoene
Posts: 11186
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Toronto.....Actually, I've been on LOL since September 1998

Post by Martin Thoene » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:00 pm

This post is relevant to the fact that Mark changed all the associations of revised Botia to Kottelat, from the original describers as written in by the author of each profile.

I wasn't sure if that was convention correct and someone brought it up on petfrd.com, so I asked the question. This is what i gor back from hwchoy:

for any species there is only one authority, which is the original describer who assigned the earliest specific epithet. the authority is unparanthesised if the species have not been moved from its originally assigned genus.

if a subsequent revision (regardless who by, could even be the original describer) is made such that the genus is reassigned, then the authority is parenthesised.

the authority is also written as "name, year" where year is the year of the original assignment of the specific epithet. the way it is written in FB is correct.
Therefore, a species described originally by Kottelat and never revised by anyone to another Genus would be...

_ _ ......_ _ _ Kottelat, 1984

A species described by Kottelat in 1990, revised by Kottelat in 1994 to another genus would be:

New Genus....._ _ _ (Kottelat, 1994)

A species described by Roberts in 1987, revised by Kottelat in 1994 would be:

New Genus.... _ _ _ (Roberts,1994)

Is that your interpretation of it? I'm going to paste this over for verification that I'm understanding things correctly.

Martin.
Image Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Image

User avatar
Martin Thoene
Posts: 11186
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Toronto.....Actually, I've been on LOL since September 1998

Post by Martin Thoene » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:22 pm

Ok, this is the amusing reply I got back:

OK originally GenusOld species1 BigFatIchthyologist, 1959
then small skinny student revised it to new genus becomes GenusNew species1 (BigFatIchthyologist, 1959)

now BFI came and revised it yet again, it is now GenusEvenNewer species1 (BigFatIchthylogist, 1959).


your last example should still be (Roberts, 1987) because that is when the paper was published that described that species.

however if subsequently it is discovered that the same fish was previously described as GenusEvenOlder species0 TheFirstIchthyologist, 1921 then it reverts to the senior synonym which is GenusEvenNewer species0 (TheFirstIchthyologist, 1921).

Originally Posted by Martin Thoene
A species described by Kottelat in 1990, revised by Kottelat in 1994 to another genus would be:

New Genus....._ _ _ (Kottelat, 1994)


should be New Genus....._ _ _ (Kottelat, 1990)

So, I think that means The Book is correct, but Mark you have the job of changing back what you changed here before buddy :wink:

Martin.
Image Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests