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:
Therefore, a species described originally by Kottelat and never revised by anyone to another Genus would be...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.
_ _ ......_ _ _ 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.