Talk:Autonym (botany)

At a cursory look the example: "when the name Lycopodium inundatum var. bigelovii was published (in 1843), " did not appear to stand up, so I left it out. Brya 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain how? --Stemonitis 11:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

sources or references

This article IS all citation from the ICBN, which is mentioned as its source in line 1. The different articles are cited for the different statements. I also think there is no better source to cite than the Code, as the meaning, use and priority of the concept are defined and regulated there.

Not having a <references/> section does not mean that no sources are cited. Based upon the above, the tag "this article does not cite any references or sources" was applied without care. I therefore removed it. - Wikiklaas (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

example of Euphorbia

I replaced the Euphorbia example as this appeared to be a rather complicated one:

The first sections that were published under the name Euphorbia are sect. Anisophyllum Roep. in: Duby, J.-E. (1828), Botanicon Gallicum, pars prima: 412, and sect. Tithymalus Duby, on the same page. Tithymalus is ascribed to Tournefort, the publication cited is Institutiones Rei Herbariae. vol. 1 (1700): 85, t.18 (a pre-startingpoint work). T.18 of Tournefort is cited by Linnaeus in Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754): 208, as a synonym for Euphorbia. The same plate is also cited by Gaertner when he published Tithymalus Gaertn., in: De Fructibus et Seminibus Plantarum, volumen alterum (1790): 115. The type of Gaertners name is Tithymalus peplus (L.) Gaertn. Tithymalus peplus is included in sect. Anisophyllum Roep. in Duby, not in sect. Tithymalus. Are you still with me?

Linnaeus did not designate a type species for the genus Euphorbia. It is therefore hard to say if one of the two sections published by (or in) Duby includes the type of Euphorbia and should be named Euphorbia L. sect. Euphorbia. As the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) only lists sect. Anisophyllum Roep., it is likely that the other section is regarded as including the type of Euphorbia L., but I have no source for that (sect Tithymalus is listed in IPNI but then as sect. Tithymalus Benth. & Hook.f., Genera Plantarum 3(1) (1880): 260).

Without any doubt, this is a very challenging case for professional botanists but it is a bad example for illustrating the use of autonyms. - Wikiklaas (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

fungi

It is not that I hold a grudge against fungi (except the ones that reach my bread before I do), but it is hard to find bibliographic information for subdivisions of fungal genera or for infraspecific fungal taxa (for plants there is IPNI; Index Fungorum does not do subdivisions of genera). As in establishing autonyms the publication in which they are established plays a crucial role, I did not think it enough to cite only names in the examples. So I gave some examples of a group of which I'm sure I have all bibliographic information at hand. If someone wants to add fungi to the examples, be my guest but please give only examples for which you can provide that important information too. - Wikiklaas (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Omitting parts of cited articles

In some instances, I deliberately omitted part(s) of a cited article. Most imporantly: I left out some pieces where articles refer to other articles. I did that because this is what makes it hard to understand the Code for someone who is new to it. When you start reading the Code, you'll soon find out that every article refers to other articles which, in their turn, refer to other articles and so on. This Wikipedia article is for those readers who are new to the Code and don't want to have to read all 62 articles of it before they can understand what an autonym is. That's very well possible: I presented what's relevant here and left out what's irrelevant. If that means there have to be some brackets ([...]) in my citations, then so be it. But please do not try to restore the information that was omitted there in order to be as precise and complete as possible, because you'll overshoot the mark then. And if you feel you really must, refer those pieces to the notes then. - Wikiklaas (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment expressed. Obviously, the botanical Code is a complicated document not lending itself to easy reading. I would be all for an easy to understand introductory article.

However, this was not what all these footnotes are accomplishing. Rather than making it easy for the reader they are misdirecting him and misinforming him, presenting him with many small and big errors. Lets keep it simple, and above all no more inaccurate than really need be. CubicFeet (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A good example of what not to do is:

"After 1 Januari 2007, a type must be a preserved specimen. Only the type of a name of microscopic algae or microfungi may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name. "

• As a citation it is terribly incomplete.
• It is not particularly readable.
• It is completely untrue
• If it were true it would not be really relevant.

The "After 1 Januari 2007, there are some restrictions for new names as to when a type can be an illustration." is at least accurate and readable. Of course, it may be questioned if it is relevant here. - CubicFeet (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)