Subject: Nomenclature

From: [email-masked] (David H. Griffin)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 13:43:28 GMT

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]

---

From: [email-masked] (David H. Griffin)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 12:56:29 GMT

From: [email-masked] (Palm, Mary)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 11:04:51 -0600
To: [email-masked] (David H. Griffin)
Subject: RE: Nomenclature

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

Examples abound in the literature, I will choose a hypothetical one
rather than single one out for criticism.

First, do we agree that the identification of a fungus is not complete
without the authority citation?

Second, All names of investigators are completely ficticious, and any
resemblance to anyone living or dead are totally accidental.

Suppose that I am writing a paper about some work on Achlya bisexualis
Coker and Couch. In this writing I wish to refer to related work done
on Saprolegnia ferax by Someone Else (1963). Further, that Dr. Else has
not provided an authority citation in her paper.

If the principle queried above is correct, then Dr. Else has not made a
complete identification of the fungus that she studied. Am I to
complete that identification in my paper? On what basis? I have not
seen the fungus, and cannot confirm anything about its identity.

Of course, I might also cite a paper by Nobody Nose (1986) in which Dr.
Nose has written about Saprolegnia ferax (Gruith.) Thuret; therefore
fully identified. Should I apply the authorities used by Nose (1986) to
the work by Else (1963)? On what basis?

Should I ignore Else (1963) as faulty work? I think not, it is terribly
relevant, and would be so even if Else had completely misidentified the
fungus and had actually studied Saprolegnia latvica Apis. Indeed, Nose
might have been a perfectly competent cell biologist, but an excrable
fungus identifier and had actually studied Aphanomyces sparrowii
Cutter. Without voucher specimens we could never solve these problems.
That is another issue.

The answer for me is to let the identification and the authority rest
with the original author. It is not my responsibility without some
further basis for making a decision. In general, we do not have a
rational basis for adding facts to another persons work.

Do these examples suffice?

Dave.

David H. Griffin