issue with subclade names not being capitalized and showing up in not obvious spot

[atrox10]

Hey All

So I added all the subgenus names for Anolis and Phrynosoma. These are basically subclades for these taxa.

They are showing up when you click on the species, but the name is not capitalized (see Phrynosoma blainvillii). It says (anota)/phrynosomatidae

for subclade/family.

First these need to be capitalized.

And second for these taxa (Anolis and Phrynosoma) do we want them to show up like they did in the original document, which is like this

Phrynsoma (Anota) blainvillii ?

And these don't show up at all when printing out the html. That would be useful to include somehow. Thanks Carol

[tigerhawkvok]

What are the generalized rules for subgenera / subclades?

The best I could find was Phylocode Article 10, which says subclades should be denoted as, eg, Phyrnosoma-Anota (which would make me change parsing to allow a dash in genus):

As per 10F:

Example 2. If one were selecting a name for the animal clade corresponding in composition to the subgenus Crotaphytus of the genus Crotaphytus Holbrook, and if the name Crotaphytus could not be converted for that clade because that name had already been established under this code for a clade corresponding in composition with the genus, the name that should be selected is Crotaphytus-Crotaphytus (provided that there is no other preexisting name that has been widely and recently applied to this clade)

I could find no other canonical reference / example in Phylocode, and none at all in the ICZN with article 44 and article 67, which at best suggests mentioning the other genus inline:

Example. Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, one of the nominal species originally included in the decapod crustacean genus Homarus Weber, 1795, was subsequently designated by Fowler (1912) as the type species of Homarus. The type species is, and should be cited as, Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775. Astacus marinus Fabricius is currently synonymized with Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, but the latter is not the type species of Homarus and should not be cited as such. If mention of the type species is required it should be made in some such manner as "Type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, a junior synonym of Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758"; or "Type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, now regarded as a synonym of Homarus gammarus (Linnaeus, 1758)".

Which makes it unclear how to proceed.

Even if it's always parenthetical (though I actually couldn't find any parenthetical example / reference), we should come up with a standardized formatting so it can be intelligently parsed / displayed.

[atrox10]

So for our purposes, I think the only subclades we have are for Anolis and Phrynsoma. On the original entries from Brian Crother, they had them like this Phrynosoma (Anota) blainvillii

etc.

So between Genus and species, in parentheses and capitalized. I am not sure if we had any listed for frogs or salamanders.

If it's only for those two Genera, maybe we can do something specific for them?

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Philip Kahn notifications@github.com wrote:

What are the generalized rules for subgenera / subclades?

The best I could find was Phylocode Article 10 https://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art10.html, which says subclades should be denoted as, eg, Phyrnosoma-Anota (which would make me change parsing to allow a dash in genus):

As per 10F:

Example 2. If one were selecting a name for the animal clade corresponding in composition to the subgenus Crotaphytus of the genus Crotaphytus Holbrook, and if the name Crotaphytus could not be converted for that clade because that name had already been established under this code for a clade corresponding in composition with the genus, the name that should be selected is Crotaphytus-Crotaphytus (provided that there is no other preexisting name that has been widely and recently applied to this clade)

I could find no other canonical reference / example in Phylocode, and none at all in the ICZN with article 44 http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article=44#1 and article 67 http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article=67, which at best suggests mentioning the other genus inline:

Example. Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, one of the nominal species originally included in the decapod crustacean genus Homarus Weber, 1795, was subsequently designated by Fowler (1912) as the type species of Homarus. The type species is, and should be cited as, Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775. Astacus marinus Fabricius is currently synonymized with Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, but the latter is not the type species of Homarus and should not be cited as such. If mention of the type species is required it should be made in some such manner as "Type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, a junior synonym of Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758"; or "Type species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, now regarded as a synonym of Homarus gammarus (Linnaeus, 1758)".

Which makes it unclear how to proceed.

Even if it's always parenthetical, we should come up with a standardized formatting so it can be intelligently parsed / displayed.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/SSARHERPS/SSAR-species-database/issues/71#issuecomment-123040580 .

Carol L. Spencer, Ph.D. Staff Curator of Herpetology & Researcher Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 3101 Valley Life Sciences Building University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA 94720-3160 atrox10@gmail.com and atrox@berkeley.edu 510-643-5778 /FAX: 510-643-8238

http://www.herpnet.org http://mvz.berkeley.edu/ http://www.vertnet.org

[tigerhawkvok]

It won't be too different a scope change between a generalized and specific solution, so we might as well do it right!

[tigerhawkvok]

Closing, moving re-scoped issue to #74