What value in citing the original author/ describer?

[Chuck]

Papilio orsippus Godman & Salvin, 1888


What value is there in always citing the original author(s)/ describer(s) of a taxon?

I suppose it's nice to recognize those who contributed to science.

But is there value in it?

Often both the genus and species name has changed since then.

It's typically not even close to the most recent paper.

The original document, if predating photography, provides little in the way of accurate morphology. Cited locations have changed names, food or nectaring plant identifications are suspect, etc. In short, the first description isn't really of much value today.

So why is it continued?

[adamcotton]

The taxon name is linked to the original description via 'author, year' in order to precisely indicate what is being referred to. Sometimes the same name was published more than once by different authors (homonymy), so citing 'author, year' distinguishes the senior name from the junior homonym which is usually a different entity.

Importantly taxon names are mostly linked to one or more name-bearing type specimens (usually a holotype, but often syntypes (each syntype has equal name-bearing status but some may subsequently be found to belong to different taxa) or a lectotype designated subsequently as the name-bearing type specimen from one of the syntypes in order to fix the name to one taxon; or very occasionally a neotype, designated under very strict criteria to replace a lost name-bearing type). The importance of this is that the name-bearing type specimen(s) definitively represent the taxon with 'author, year', as opposed to a taxon of the same name with a different 'author, year'.

Scientific publications should always cite 'author, year' the first time a particular taxon name is used, so that it is absolutely clear what is being discussed.

Often both the genus and species name has changed since then.

If the species name has been changed, then the name being discussed under 'Genus species author, year' should be either the valid name for the species, or mentioned as a junior synonym etc.

If the taxon has changed genus since the original description for whatever reason, then 'author, year' is placed in parentheses to indicate that the name was originally described in a different genus.

In short, the first description isn't really of much value today.

To some extent I agree, but the original description is a vital staring point to fix the identity of the taxon name.

So why is it continued?

Because, if it was not continued the precise identity of the taxon would probably change over time, and that would be a major cause of nomenclatural instability.

Adam.

[Chuck]

Thanks Adam. Interesting insights.

Some people put the author/year on pinned specimens and/or header labels. What are the rules on this, and is it anything more than "interesting"?

[adamcotton]

There are no 'rules' about labelling specimens in collections, other than any that may be imposed by the institution or private collector. Personally I do not include 'author, year' on my specimen labels (that would take up more space) and I do not use header labels in my drawers. I would think that it would be useful to include 'author, year' on header labels, but it is absolutely unregulated.

Adam.

[adamcotton]

On the other hand, name-bearing type specimens should be clearly labelled so they are easy for a researcher to identify. This is often a problem with type specimens of older taxa. Anything older than 20th century may not have a label on it unless a researcher or curator added one, since before then there wasn't a clear type concept. In the late 19th century the type concept was developed, but initially not in a codified manner. However, older type specimens often have a name label on them, or at least original labels from the author of their names.

Adam.

[Chuck]

On the other hand, name-bearing type specimens should be clearly labelled so they are easy for a researcher to identify.

Is there any sort of standard? Not that I've noticed.

My type have an extra, unmarked yellow label, and the still-unknowns are pink. That should make somebody think, in a sea of white labels. Right?

Of course, I have a bunch of "I know what it's not" that need detailed review by specialists, those aren't marked.

[adamcotton]

Is there any sort of standard? Not that I've noticed.

No, there is no standard, just that type specimens should have a label on the pin clearly marking the status as a type - holotype, paratype, syntype, lectotype or neotype. There are no other valid type designations. Sometimes the incorrect term 'allotype' is used for a specimen of the opposite sex to the holotype, but that specimen is a paratype if designated in the original description. Occasionally papers are published designating an allotype when the female is discovered subsequent to the original description. In such a case the 'allotype' is not even a paratype and has no type status at all.

Adam.