I have a question regarding taxonomic authority given in a situation where once upon a time a new species was described, but later demoted to a subspecies of an already existing species where it exists today. If I want to provide authority for the subspecies, is it given to the person who originally described it as a species, or to the person who later described it as subspecies?
Is it a plant or animal? If an animal, no additional authorities need be cited in addition to the original describer, regardless of the taxon rank or the genus it is assigned to. Botanists have a different system.
My question was with an animal in mind, but I don’t mind if botanists chime in. Also, that’s what I thought in terms of authority, buy wanted additional opinions.
Forgot to add that if it’s now in a genus different from the one where it was originally assigned, whether as a species or subspecies, the describer’s name and year of the original description are put in parentheses.
Does this address what you’re asking about? (The change of genus matters, too, of course but for the purpose of this example, I think we can ignore it.)
Elymus lanceolatus ssp. psammophilus (J.M. Gillett & H. Senn) A. Löve
Basionym: Agropyron psammophilum J.M. Gillett & Senn
J.M. Gillett & H. Senn originaly published the name psammophilum. A. Löve moved it. The author of “psammophilus” will be there no matter whether this is a change of rank or of genus.
Many of us would write this as follows, at least on annotation labels:
Elymus lanceolatus (Scribn. & J.M. Sm.) Gould ssp. psammophilus (J.M. Gillett & H. Senn) A. Löve
Zoologists would add the date after the author name. Botanists generally don’t.
6 Likes
Yes, that does help. Thank you.
Which can make for confusion in papers that use APA citation style because it looks like the original description would be listed in the cited sources.
Definitely confusing. I often felt that the authority name/year after a species should have brackets instead of parentheses to denote that it’s not a cited reference.
I’ve always found the botanical taxonomic annotations to a scientific name intimidating compared to the simple ones in zoology. But I suppose they are needed in part to differentiate subspecies from varieties?
Yes. Maybe some day botanists will give up on subspecies vs. varieties, but not any time soon.
Also to keep track of what was switched from one genus to another and who to blame for that.
1 Like
Picea abies (L.) H.Karst. Deut. Fl. (Karsten) Lief. 2/3: 324 (-325). 1881 [Feb 1881], author of the original combination – here: Linnaeus, author of the new combination – here: Karsten, document publishing the new name – here: page 324 of Deutsche Flora. Pharmaceutisch-medicinische Botanik… and its date – here: February 1881. Such precise data are given only in specialized, taxonomic publications. However, the bibliographic data of the original combination are not provided, in this case page 1002 of Species Plantarum from 1753.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.