Author rendering problem for author strings with non

[gdower]

Names with non in the author string on rendering like this in the backend:

Xiphipops fisheri () non Snyder, 1904

http://api.catalogueoflife.org/dataset/3LR/nameusage/search?q=Xiphipops%20fisheri

It should be rendered like Xiphipops fisheri (non Snyder, 1904) according to the original source:

http://api.catalogueoflife.org/dataset/3LR/nameusage/search?q=Xiphipops%20fisheri http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2019/details/species/id/587afe9531d12b58997646929867a0be/synonym/038a4d358f0f5f44515d76459be2ed93

That's how it is provided in the verbatim data:

https://data.catalogueoflife.org/dataset/1010/verbatim?q=Xiphipops%20fisheri

[yroskov]

As presented on FishBase website:

https://fishbase.mnhn.fr/Nomenclature/SynonymsList.php?ID=9222&SynCode=27342&GenusName=Centropyge&SpeciesName=acanthops

As presented in AC19: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2019/details/species/id/587afe9531d12b58997646929867a0be/synonym/038a4d358f0f5f44515d76459be2ed93

[mdoering]

what meaning do the brackets have? Would it be fine to remove them with the standardization so it becomes Xiphipops fisheri non Snyder, 1904 ?

[yroskov]

To avoid confusion of CoL users, the authorstring presentation in CoL should match its presentation in the original website - i.e. in brackets in this case.

(However, I'll forward your question to Nicolas)

[yroskov]

Dear Nicolas,

FishBase: Could you please let us know, whether brackets in authorstrings with misapplied names essential, or can be dropped? Please reply via GitHub.

Example of names: https://fishbase.mnhn.fr/Nomenclature/SynonymsList.php?ID=9222&SynCode=27342&GenusName=Centropyge&SpeciesName=acanthops

Yours, Yury

[mdoering]

To avoid confusion of CoL users, the authorstring presentation in CoL should match its presentation in the original website - i.e. in brackets in this case.

We mostly try to do that - with the exception of splitting the name authorship and the misapplied "accordingTo" into 2 parts. I reckon we can keep the brackets if we need to - but it I wonder if it's not better to remove them like everywhere else with "non"?

[NicBailly]

These names recover two situations:

• Misidentifications
• Wrong name having been applied for a long time to a valid species (e.g., Epinephelus guaza for Epinephelus marginatus). The latter case is much less frequent than the former.

Parentheses have no meaning although we are progressively filling up if the name used in a misidentification represent an original vs a new combination, when we have finished, parentheses could =have meanings. We will also differentiate between the 2 cases above by using non for misidentification, and not of for misapplied name, but it is only plans for now.

[yroskov]

Done. Nicolas.

[mdoering]

@NicBailly I am only catching up on this now. I still find the use of brackets in your misapplications odd. Looking at the example from above:

Centropyge fisheri (non Snyder, 1904) is a misapplication of the recombination Centropyge fisheri (Snyder, 1904). non Snyder, 1904 states this is the usage by someone (or rather anyone), but Snyder in 1904. As Snyder was the original author and likely never used that combination it makes little sense to me. The non would have to be the combination author. That obviously is not tracked in zoology, so you end up placing the non into the brackets, correct? Did you consider to use Centropyge fisheri non (Snyder, 1904) instead? This seems a bit better to me. Much better would be to know which author did misapply the name, sth like Centropyge fisheri (Snyder, 1904) sensu F. Schneidewind, 2004.

Another thing I find odd is that you list the misapplied name as an accepted name in your website. There is also a Status ref Schindler, I. and F. Schneidewind,2004 given, would that be the reference the misapplication is found in? Then this would be an important concept reference to know, sth DwC and ColDP track as accordingTo.

[mdoering]

@dhobern @chantalhuijbers this might be an interesting topic for the Taxonomy Group to discuss.