Subject: RE: Nomenclature

From: [email-masked] (Palm, Mary)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 08:06:29 -0700

Hi Dave
Could you give a few examples of problems that have arisen
when citing authorities for fungi cited in other publications?
That would help in discussing the points you've raised.
Thanks.
Mary Palm

 ----------
From: David H. Griffin
To: mycology
Subject: Nomenclature
Date: Friday, June 16, 1995 10:07AM

Current editorial policy for Mycologia states:

"Authorities for all specific and infraspecific taxa except forma
specialis are cited the first time they appear in the text, or thay are
cited in a table."

Since the authorities are part of the specific name, they should
certainly be included for the correct identification of fungi included
in any study. However, when taxa are referred to from another
investigators work that are not included in the current study, I think
there are several problems that arrise, and authorities should not be
cited. Rather, the the cited work stands for the proper identification
and authorities for the taxa concerned.

It seems to me that cliting authorities for another investigator may
often add to the meaning or even change the meaning of the works cited.
Other journals and older works may not be as careful as Mycologia is
currently in demanding that authors include authorities as part of the
specific epithet. The addition of authorities by the current authors
demands an assumption that may not be warranted. Further, there could
be confusion when similar names or mistakes are made by the cited
authors that the current author may attempt to correct, or may
unwittingly change ("correct").

It seems to me that it is the responsibility of the authors of the
cited work to correctly identify and label the fungi they used. The
citation of that publication should suffice and if that work does not
make a correct designation of the species, we cannot correct that.

Therefore, it is my thinking that no authorities should be given when
fungi are referenced from other publications. The reference cited
supplies that or not depending on the carefulness of those authors.
Only fungi actually studied by the investigators of the current ms
should have authorites.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

Dave.

David H. Griffin
Department of Environmental & Forest Biology
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
350 Illick Hall
One Forestry Drive
Syracuse NY 13210-2788
e-mail: [email-masked]

 ------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from FUNGI.ars-grin.gov by nt.ars-grin.gov
  (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.5c for Windows NT(tm))
  id AA-1995Jun16.100729.1038.6776; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:07:29 -0600
Received: from net.bio.net [134.172.2.69] by FUNGI.ars-grin.gov ; 16 Jun 95
09:44:39 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id GAA21679
for
mycology-list; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 06:41:34 -0700
Received: (from news@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id GAA21674 
for
mycology-arpanet; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 06:41:32 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (David H. Griffin)
Subject: Nomenclature
Date: 16 Jun 1995 13:43:28 GMT
Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[7176]@net.bio.net
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.119.5.44
X-Posted-From: InterNews [email-masked]
Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name.

Mary E. Palm
301-504-5327, FAX 301-504-5810
[email-masked]