This may be true of vertebrates (but what about small mammals, herps or
birds, especially outside Western Europe, when nomenclature becomes
progressively more tangled?). However, for invertebrates there is so much
taxonomic muddle that both the author and the check-list or key work being
followed really need to be cited.
Harry Kenward.
"Richard H. Meadow" wrote:
> The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature states the following:
> "Article 51a:-Optional Use.-The name of the author does not form part
> of the name of a taxon and its citation is optional, although
> customary and often advisable."
> In my opinion, for zooarchaeological purposes it is not necessary to
> use the authority name in most cases. In some cases where there is a
> question of identification and the possibility of new forms being
> described, then it is definitely advisable. If the systematics of a
> form is in a state of uncertainty, then you might cite an author or
> authors whom you are using as authorities for your use of
> nomenclature and let the reader sort things out from there, if it is
> not critical to your argument.
> Richard Meadow
--
Harry Kenward, Director, Environmental Archaeology Unit, Department of
Biology,
University of York, PO Box 373, York YO10 5YW UK. (Tel. 01904 433848/49;
Fax: 01904 433850; email [log in to unmask])
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|