I am writing a paper with two colleagues, one of whom is an
archaeobotanist. The paper attempts to integrate different types of
environmental evidence, but it is proving more difficult to integrate
the environmental specialists!!!
We are disagreeing about the need for a full taxonomic referencing
system - i.e. referring to sheep as Ovis aries L.. (Can't do italics
on this email system). It is need for the "L" we are disagreeing
about. (Sus domesticus (Erxleben, 1777)) etc.
We want to be consistent throughout the paper, but are having
difficulty finding the "correct" naming system for the fish, mollusca
and mammals. The domesticates are okay, being covered in
Clutton-Brock and Reitz and Wing, but I can't find a full reference
for red deer (Cervus elaphus), which I do want to refer to in Latin
as its regional name varies.
Is it strictly necessary to use this convention for referring to
plants? Would it be unusual or incorrect to use it in referring to
animals? How does one find the correct names for animal species,
short of buying the International Code For Zoological Nomenclature?
I think the paper will look sloppy if the two zooarchaeologists use
a different system to that used by the archaeobotanist.
I have spent a couple of days looking through books and papers by
zooarchaeologists and archaeobotanists and it appears that the usual
way is to give the Linnaean binomial alone, the exception seems to
be insects, which I can imagine being more complex, new species being
discovered all the time etc. I have spent ages on the internet
pursuing this also. I now want to think about something else!!!
Can anyone help??
Jennifer
Jennifer Thoms
Dept of Archaeology,
University of Edinburgh,
12 Infirmary Street,
Edinburgh,
EH1 1LT
Tel: 0131 650 2373 / 2384
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|