[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Citing combinations with subgenera
I have been working on a new version of the Pterosaur Species List and ended up
stumbling upon what may be nomenclature's darker secrets. This is about citing
authors of genus-subgenus-species combinations. While the ICZN makes it clear
that a genus-species combination which is different from that into which the
species was originally placed is to be cited with the species' author in
parentheses optionally followed by the author for the genus-species
combination, it says nothing about subgenera. Overall, the ICZN only fleetingly
mentions subgenera and tells nothing about how to cite combinations that
include subgenera. Pteranodon sternbergi and Pteranodon (Geosternbergia)
sternbergi are the same genus-species combination, one that would be cited as
Harksen, 1966. But giving that citation does not give credit to Miller, 1978,
who first coined Pteranodon (Geosternbergia) sternbergi. The ICZN states: 'If
it is desired to cite both the author of a species-group nominal taxon and
rson who first transferred it to another genus, the name of the person forming
the new combination should follow the parentheses that enclose the name of the
author of the species-group name'. This is pretty specific about genera, but if
I were to cite Pteranodon (Geosternbergia) sternbergi simply as Harksen, 1966,
I would be giving Harksen credit for a subgenus he did not create.
After looking through entomological literature (where subgenera are quite
common) I noticed entomologists like using any means they can to avoid this
problem, but the format of my listing does not allow me to do the same.
So, how should I go about doing this? Again, Pteranodon (Geosternbergia)
sternbergi Harksen, 1966 does not give credit where credit is due and
Pteranodon (Geosternbergia) sternbergi (Harksen, 1966) Miller, 1978 is
evidently improper. Mike Keesey suggested Pteranodon (Geosternbergia)
sternbergi Harksen, 1966 per Miller, 1978, but this seems odd to me.
And yes, I know Miller's subgenera are no longer considered valid, but that's
besides the point.