Name: Amanita sect. Amanita
Deprecated Synonyms: Amanita sect. Leucospori Mladý
Amanita (subg. Amanita) sect. Amanita [autonym]
section Amanita – Amanitaceae.org – Taxonomy and Morphology of Amanita and Limacella http://www.amanitaceae.org/?section%20Amanita
A list of the taxa presently assigned to this section by Tulloss and Yang can be found here:
A brief description of the section can be found here:
I also used to think of the series of subgeneric names in strings, but learned that each is separate.
Therefore there are:
Amanita subg. Amanita
Amanita sect. Amanita
Amanita subsect. Amanita
Note 1. Names of subdivisions of the same genus, even if they differ in rank, are homonyms if they have the same epithet but are based on different types (Art. 53.3), because the rank-denoting term is not part of the name.
Since they are not considered binomials (binary combinations), would the combination Amanita subg. Amanita sect. Amanita subsect. Amanita be OK; or preferred to simply: Amanita subsect. Amanita?
also be added to “editors” here?
I don’t know how that occurs, though. must not be automatic?
Another good stimulating discussion on MO, with a chorus of many voices. No mycologists were harmed in the making of this dialogue.
Happy holidays to all.
PS (I meant to include this in my prior post).
Herbert asks (regarding “binomials”): “Has the code changed a lot since Melbourne?”
|Melbourne Glossary||Shenzhen Glossary|
|“binary combination (binomial). A generic name combined with a specific epithet to form a species name (Art. 23.1).”||“binary combination (binomial). A generic name combined with a specific epithet to form a species name (Art. 23.1) (see also combination)."|
Comment: Legalistic documents like the Code can be sleep-inducing,. It sometimes helps to look at another source as an introduction to the underlying document. But the other source is not the underlying document; it’s someone’s interpretation/spin. So if you have a question that’s controlled by the underlying document, start there.
Reminds me of Justice Frankfurter’s (apocryphal) three rules of statutory interpretation:
1. Read the statute.
2. Read the statute.
3. Read the statute.
Thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to educate us with your (now) three Comments.
I’ll think some more about what everyone has said. From an developer and admin viewpoint I need to think not only about the ICN, but also about other issues, e.g., how the resolution would fit with our API (Application Programming Interface). I probably won’t Comment further until after New Year’s Day; I’m running out of available time.
Best Holiday Wishes to everyone.
On MO the name of the genus is already established via the ranking system. What benefit would there be to include it here?
Has the code changed a lot since Melbourne?
“For botanical nomenclature, the ICBN prescribes a two-part name or binary name for any taxon below the rank of genus down to, and including the rank of species. Taxa below the rank of species (infraspecific taxa) get a three part name (ternary name).
The ranks explicitly mentioned in the ICBN as having a binary name are:
A binary name consists of the name of a genus and an epithet.
In the case of a species this is a specific epithet:
Bellis perennis is the name of a species, with perennis the specific epithet. There is no connecting term involved, to indicate the rank
In the case of a subdivion of a genus (subgenus, section, subsection, series, subseries, etc) the name consists of the name of a genus and a subdivisional epithet. A connecting term should be placed before the subdivisional epithet to indicate the rank." https://biocyclopedia.com/index/botanical_name.php
In answer to the previous post, it should be kept in mind that citation of any authorship is optional.
Art. 46.1. In publications, particularly those dealing with taxonomy and nomenclature, it may be desirable, even when no bibliographic reference to the protologue is made, to cite the author(s) of the name concerned (see also Art. 22.1 and 26.1). In so doing, the following rules apply. – followed by specific rules…
In our publication we had already cited Amanita Pers., so why repeat that information? We could have but did not worry too much at the time.
In answer to your last questions
Glossary – binary combination (binomial). A generic name combined with a specific epithet to form a species name (Art. 23.1) (see also combination).
All other combinations require connecting terms and are not binomials. If you have to stick subg. or sect. or form.
or subsp. etc. in, then the name is not a binomial.
Let me try to ask more simply, maybe that will help clarify what is being asked.
Why did you choose to use the autonym Amanita sect. Amanita without the author “Pers.” after the genus in your recent publication of Saproamanita? Would this have been inappropriate? e.g. Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita
What is the benefit of including the genus author here. Shouldn’t there be a goal to reduce redundancy in the naming system?
Also, isn’t a binary name a synonym of binomial name in nomenclature? And doesn’t this include the ranks below genus and down to species?
Hi – just a quick note that Debbie’s email went into my junk mail folder which is why it took 2 days to respond. Sorry about that.
As for whether one can or should cite the combination as Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita, it seems this is acceptable. See the example for Art. 23.22.3. The first instance of valid publication of a name of a subdivision of a genus under a legitimate generic name automatically establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Art. 11.6 and 32.3).
Ex. 6. Publication of Tibetoseris sect. Simulatrices Sennikov (in Komarovia 5: 91. 2008) automatically established the autonym Tibetoseris Sennikov sect. Tibetoseris. Publication of Pseudoyoungia sect. Simulatrices (Sennikov) D. Maity & Maiti (in Compositae Newslett. 48: 31. 2010) automatically established the autonym Pseudoyoungia D. Maity & Maiti sect. Pseudoyoungia.
My message to Scott on Wednesday (two days prior):
From: debbie viess
To: Scott Redhead
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018, 12:14:17 PM PST
Subject: Happy Holidays to YOU!
There is a rather convoluted and heated discussion going on right now on MO, about how to write sections like Amanita section Amanita. Should authors be cited for the Genus? I used the simplest term: Amanita section Amanita. But others argued otherwise. You can read the entire thing here:
Since Rod cited you as the ultimate authority, I thought I’d pull you into the mix!
Whether you choose to jump in or not is of course up to you.
All the best,
I wrote Scott two days ago. I heard back from him today. And then I got the notice from Joe, that he was planning on writing him (as well), so I informed you all that I had already contacted him, and that he was considering his reponse to this discussion.
I directed him to this discussion so that he could read it for himself and make up his own mind what to say.
My sense of humor, as usual with some, has fallen flat. But at least, after first invoking his name here, we did manage to include Scott in this discussion, which was my goal, and perhaps even yours, Joe.
And indeed, patience has rewarded us with a reply. And with luck, a bit more clarification.
The question was about “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” vs. “Amanita sect. Amanita”, .
Specifically, the ICN exemplifies “Rhododendron L. subg. Rhododendron” and “M. subg. Malpighia” in Article 22, which is confusing, as it allows flexibility in the nomeclatural treatment of autonyms regarding authorship/attribution.
We have already established by reading the ICN code’s unambiguous language that “Amanita sect. Amanita Pers.” is incorrect prior to your comment.
I apologize if I misread/misunderstood your lengthy comment and you had actually answered our question in a different way.
Dear MO folks:
My attention was drawn to this discussion today that otherwise I may not have noticed for a long time. By way of background for those of you not familiar with me, I am currently Chair of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF), member of the International Commission on the Taxonomy for Fungi (ICTF), recently served as Deputy Secretary of the Fungal Nomenclatural Bureau (International Mycological Congress [IMC], San Juan, Puerto Rico 2018), and was an attending and voting member at the Shenzhen International Botanical Congress [IBC] (2017) where the Shenzhen Code changes were approved, as well as at the Vienna (2005) and Melbourne (2011) Congresses. This seems to qualify me as a nomenclaturalist (i.e. one who studies nomenclature), a label often viewed as a pejorative label, as if we live only to be nomenclaturalist, and cannot then be taxonomists, ecologists, plant pathologists, or normal. Be that as it may, here is some fact checking.
The Shenzhen Code supersedes any earlier Codes (Preamble 14 https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/preamble.html), and it, not the earlier Codes should be consulted, except that there is a new chapter, “F” for Fungi, where some articles in that chapter may be changed at IMCs. The first IMC after the Shenzhen IBC (2017) was the Puerto Rico IMC (2018). Some changes were made. See http://www.imafungus.org/Issue/92/MycoNames2.pdf
A binomial is defined in Article 23.1 and in the glossary, as “The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition…” That’s it. Binomials are only species names. However, species names are also combinations. Combinations are defined in Art. 6.7, as “The name of a taxon below the rank of genus, consisting of the name of a genus combined with one or two epithets, is termed a combination…” Cited examples are: Mouriri subg. Pericrene Morley, Gentiana lutea L., and Equisetum palustre f. fluitans Vict. “Morley”, “L.” and “Vict.” are authors (authorships) and “subg.” and “f.” are connecting terms assigning rank, e.g. subgenus and form. Therefore Amanita sect. Amanita is a combination but not a binomial within the ICN. That is because there is no need for a connecting term. The rank-determining connecting term is not part of the name itself. The word, ‘name’ in the Code has a very precise definition.
Having said that autonyms (Art. 6.8) are created by the valid publication of a subdivision of either a species or a genus with some qualifications (Arts. 22.3, 26.3). The ICN specifically states “not followed by an author citation” (Art. 22.1 for generic names; Art. 26.1 for species names). A given example (22.1) is: Ex. 2. The subgenus that includes the type of Malpighia L. (M. glabra L.) is to be called M. subg. Malpighia, not M. subg. Homoiostylis Nied.; and the section that includes the type of Malpighia is to be called M. sect. Malpighia, not M. sect. Apyrae DC.
Therefore Amanita sect. Amanita should not be labelled Amanita sect. Amanita Pers. The logic behind this may have been that the original author often never intended to split the genus, even though or even if there are cases where the original author was the one first splitting it. However, even nomenclaturalists can make compromises, contrary to some opinions, and Paul Kirk, gate keep for Index Fungorum, and well known nomenclaturalist (among other labels), does place “Pers.” after as in Amanita sect. Amanita Pers. and Mycobank often follows suit. Paul will also list names that are not valid, and under the ICN (Shenzhen Code) are not themselves “names” under Code definitions. He does so out of practicality so that you know that he knows he has seen the name in the literature. At this point it is not worth the effort for him or others to fight over it. There are bigger fish to fry.
I should point out that I have several times suggested at meetings that we should eliminate authorship names now that we have database registries. Approved in San Juan was Proposal 7 modified as follows: “Proposal F-007 was amended so that the first sentence became an Article, and the second sentence a Recommendation, with addition of words “already published” before name of organisms, and “subsequent to the protologue” after “may be used”.
It would then read (subject to minor editing):
F (Art.) For names of already published organisms treated as fungi, the identifier for the name of a taxon issued by an ICN-recognized registration repository (see also Art. 22.1 and 26.1) may be used subsequent to the protologue in place of the author citation of the name (but not to replace the name itself ).
Rec. The identifier should be preceded by a hash (#) and enclosed in square brackets. In electronic publications this identifier should be directly linked out to its stable representation (Universal Resource Indicator) in one of the registration repositories.”
“Ex. 1. Astrothelium meristosporoides [#816706]; the link
out for the latter identifier would be www.mycobank.org/MB/816706 or, alternatively, http://www.indexfungorum.org/
Ex. 2. Lecanora varia [#389546]; the link out for the latter
identifier would be http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/
NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=389546 or, alternatively, www.
This is an attempt to eliminate a lot of duplication, incorrect citations, increase efficiency and eliminte ego. In the end MO may do what it likes.
He agreed that the code seems to be clear allowing the “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” option, and that following that on MO seems to make sense. He also pointed out that that construction is rarely used in the literature, and suggested I email Juan Carlos Zamora about it, which I have just done.
Immediately upon posting (at 2018-12-14 09:28:44 PST) that I would seek input from Scott Redhead, I started drafting an email to him. When the draft was complete, I proofed it, checked the quotes, checked the links, made necessary corrections and sent it. I want to be open and transparent, so here it is (click to enlarge):
When I later returned to MO, I discovered Debbie Viess’s Comment (after my posting) (telling her “pretties” to be “patien[t]”). I sent this short follow-up to Scott Redhead: “I just discovered that while I was composing my earlier email, Debbie Viess wrote you about this issue and says that you will respond on MO. I hope your response will address the question I asked. (It’s what I need to know as an MO developer and administrator.)”
and received a reply. He is “pondering his response,” and will respond directly here.
Patience, my pretties.
1. I will seek some input from Dr. Redhead.
In a Comment below, you said:
If MO does decide to include authors as suggested, it still has a formatting issue that should be addressed before implementation.
Could you please clarify? (I’d like to have a complete picture of the options.)
I felt the following statements by Rod should be addressed because it discusses the ICN Article dealing with autonyms:
“You don’t know the motivation of the ICN authors who give examples with an author citation after the genus name and, later, not in that position in article 22 as you point out. You should ask an expert why that is so. Not just assume that you have a correct interpretation… Nomenclaturalists are uncompromising, legalistic specialists.” — RET
If I understood Rod correctly, then:
1) How can we question the mindset of the persons who wrote the International Code of Nomenclature, but not of those who interpret it (nomeclaturalists), and how is that different from questioning (by any common individual) the motives of those who wrote and approved Law governing our complex society, but not those who practice/interpret it for a living to give us clear-cut, honest answers?
2) How can any flawed or ambiguous written concept be objectively interpreted by any accredited expert, regardless of whether the flaw is accidental or not and whether expert knows about it or not? Why not then make the language less ambiguous to begin with?
3) Why would the writers of the ICN be united in their motivation to be ambiguous in their language about the way the authorship of autonyms should be expressed to begin with? How would they or anyone else involved in practicing the code directly benefit from such an ambiguity?
Maybe the code writers just had a bad day or week and forgot to address the issue properly OR maybe they realized that by logic either way would be acceptable and expressed this notion by citing examples of both rather than writing about it in the code itself?! Note, however, how they are in their language regarding not citing the author following the autonym:
“The name of any subdivision of a genus that includes the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus to which it is assigned is to repeat that generic name unaltered as its epithet, not followed by an author citation.”
The way I see it presently, the subject at hand is a case of code duality, expressed by those who wrote it. We see in the code cited examples featuring both attributed (an abbreviated name of the genus author following the genus name) and aurthorless infrageneric autonyms in Article 22. I would like to believe that such examples seen throughout the ICN were given for the purpose of explaining and clarifying the code itself, making it more transparent and digestible to the reader, not for the purpose of obfuscating it.
Once again, can anyone participating in this thread point out a specific language applied to autonyms anywhere in the ICN saying explicitly or implicitly that one syntax is correct and the other is wrong OR that one should be clearly preferred over the other? If not, then both versions appear to be equally acceptable and the choice to use one over the other becomes a matter of preference for those who practice taxonomy.
I think there is plenty of brainpower on this forum to interpret the existing ICN language objectively, at its face value, and come up with a solution on our own that would benefit MO. However, if we all agree that reaching a consensus is impossible (for whatever reason), we indeed should enlist the help of INC writers/authorities and experts who “live” the code (nomenclaturalists) for a clarification. And let’s not think about their motivations. :-) I hope both will be in agreement with each other so that we can move on, author or no author for autonyms. Who knows, maybe this action will lead to an amendment to the ICN. :-)
I would not conclude that, Jacob; as you know. There is no rule needed to contradict it when the basic rule supersedes it naturally.
Where authors are recommended, we cite them accordingly. e.g. Amanita Pers. and Amanita sect. Roanokenses Singer. Note where the authorship is, these are correctly attributed.
Your argument is circular.
Thank you for clarifying the code cities.
I am concluding from the Code’s endorsed example Rhododendron L. subg. Rhododendron that Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita is also acceptable. I do not see a rule that contradicts it. Please cite the rule that contradicts it.
Once we can agree that both versions (Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita and Amanita sect. Amanita) are legal, we can talk about which is better for MO. The argument “zero benefit of including the author” applies identically strongly to Amanita Pers. and Amanita sect. Roanokenses Singer, as far as I can tell. Please cite why authorship would be more useful here than there.
The Shenzhen code is the same as the Tokyo code for this. It is a binomial. Consider that you are reading too much into the brief example given by the ICN that you are referring to in Art. 22. Consider that the basic rules of nomenclature may supersede such an example. Lastly, consider the benefit of including the author on MO, zero.
I’m sorry. I don’t understand how the quoted article means that Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita is problematic. Regardless, as far as I know the Shenzen Code is the one we use now. If you think reading more of the old version of the Article would help, can you link it here?
Article 22, Example 1 of the current code reads “The subgenus that includes the type of the name Rhododendron L. is to be named Rhododendron L. subg. Rhododendron.” I’m struggling to understand a way that this could be anything but an endorsement of Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita.
21.1. The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic name and a subdivisional epithet connected by a term (subgenus, sectio, series, etc.) denoting its rank.
Also, see here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...
about the “binomial” issue.
“Binomial” sensu ICN = genus + species.
“Binomial” sensu RET = two-part name = genus + epithet = genus + species, genus + section, etc.
Now, how on Earth do we get from here to “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” (a binomial sensu RET) being problematic?
Article 6.7 defines a name as the name of genus followed by one [in the species and subgeneric classifcations above species] or two [in cases of subspecific taxa] epithets.
It is very clear that all taxa below the rank of Genus are included under this definition. Section names are binomials.
Don’t look for “binomial” in ICN. The term is avoided in favor of “name of genus plus epithet.”
In Art. 21. a sectional name is described as a genus name followed by an eptithet. That defines a binomial.
…and we have some new arguments!
Rod: I’m sorry you’re disgusted. I think everyone who has disagreed with you in this thread is trying their best.
1. That we need to check with authoritative people, not just the authoritative code. That’s a great proposal and if you (the person who is proposing it) or Joe (the person who makes the decision here) want to ask some nomenclaturalist(s), I’d love to be cc’d on the email. I can also write it if you would like.
2. That, in Article 21, a sectional name is a binomial. I have pointed out earlier in this thread that the Code defines “binomial” as as a genus and a species. That’s not necessarily the best definition, or the commonly used one, but it’s hard to conclude anything just from saying that the Code says something it doesn’t. “Binomial” isn’t used in Article 21.
3. That we don’t know the motivation of the authors of the Code in providing their examples. Sure, nobody ever knows the true feelings behind what anyone says, that’s how reality works. But I don’t see anything unclear here. The Code indicates that authors can be cited or not, and shows examples of them being cited and not.
4. That some substantial papers write autonyms without the genus author citation. Sure! That’s a point in favor of doing it that way, to reflect an (alleged) trend. But that fact is consistent with it being legal to include the authorship, and it’s even consistent with it being better to include it on MO.
I favor the naming scheme used in recent publications by Lodge et al. (2014) and Redhead et al. (2016). They do not include the author of the genus for autonyms.
If MO does decide to include authors as suggested, it still has a formatting issue that should be addressed before implementation.
Lodge, D. J., Padamsee, M., Matheny, P. B., Aime, M. C., Cantrell, S. A., Boertmann, D., … & Ainsworth, A. M. (2014). Molecular phylogeny, morphology, pigment chemistry and ecology in Hygrophoraceae (Agaricales). Fungal Diversity, 64(1), 1-99. http://mathenylab.utk.edu/...
Redhead, S. A., Vizzini, A., Drehmel, D. C., & Contu, M. (2016). Saproamanita, a new name for both Lepidella E.-J. Gilbert and Aspidella E.-J. Gilbert (Amaniteae, Amanitaceae). IMA fungus, 7(1), 119-129. http://www.imafungus.org/Issue/71/17.pdf
If you go this way, I fear, you will be alone. You have not checked with a single nomenclaturalist.
Look at article 21. A sectional name is a binomial as I have been told over and over again by my teachers for decades.
You don’t know the motivation of the ICN authors who give examples with an author citation after the genus name and, later, not in that position in article 22 as you point out. You should ask an expert why that is so. Not just assume that you have a correct interpretation.
My experience is that it is better not to think you can read their minds.
The fact that the authors of the Kunming lab omitted an author citation after the genus name in an autonym should tell you something. Papers have to pass a nomenclatural review to be published.
I suggest you ask a real nomenclaturalist, e.g., Scott Redhead. I just ingest the ICN. Nomenclaturalists live it. Nomenclaturalists are uncompromising, legalistic specialists.
I enjoyed talking to you very much.
It looks like now it’s unanimous. Rod and Herbert have departed the discussion, and Igor and I are both in favor of Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita. Joe, can we start adding authors to these names now?
is exactly why I love MO!
After carefully reading Jacob’s latest comment and studying some articles – and examples cited therein – in the INC for for algae, fungi, and plants (e.g., the useful links provided in this thread) on my own, I had a thorough off-line discussion with Jacob to have a further clarification on this subject.
Following this, I now agree that the nomenclatural syntax for autonyms Jacob has defended as acceptable and allowable (e.g., Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita) is indeed so. For example, Article 22 lists this kind of syntax in the examples they give:
“22.1, Ex. 1. The subgenus that includes the type of the name Rhododendron L. is to be named Rhododendron L. subg. Rhododendron.”
“22.3, Ex. 6. Publication of Tibetoseris sect. Simulatrices Sennikov (in Komarovia 5: 91. 2008) automatically established the autonym Tibetoseris Sennikov sect. Tibetoseris. Publication of Pseudoyoungia sect. Simulatrices (Sennikov) D. Maity & Maiti (in Compositae Newslett. 48: 31. 2010) automatically established the autonym Pseudoyoungia D. Maity & Maiti sect. Pseudoyoungia.”
At the same time, the alternative “authorless” syntax in infrageneric autonyms is fine, too. This is because the ICN rules don’t seem to enforce the genus attribution in autonyms by way of a specific language. [if anyone finds evidence to the contrary, it should be pointed out in this discussion!]
Furthermore, in support of this notion, the same Article 22 lists the following example:
“22.1, Ex. 2. The subgenus that includes the type of Malpighia L. (M. glabra L.) is to be called M. subg. Malpighia.”
It’s unclear if the attribution here is dropped because the genus name gets abbreviated, but in any event they don’t write M. L. subg. Malpighia.
So I admit here that I was wrong and overconfident in having called Jacob’s syntax proposal for this particular name “nonsensical”. Perhaps the better word would have been “redundant”, in the sense that “Pers.” may not be needed, as the authorship of Amanita had already been firmly established.
Thus, I think that MO would actually benefit from adopting the syntax scheme with author attribution following the genus name in all validly published autonyms at the infrageneric level of subdivisions, i.e., at least at the subgeneric and sectional levels. For example, Leccinum Gray sect. Leccinum and Hydnum L. subg. Hydnum (NOT Hydnum subg. Hydnum L., as it’s listed on p. 10 in Niskanen et al. 2018). This is because on MO – as Jacob pointed out – the vast majority of published names at different taxonomic ranks have authors attached to them, as they normally should, and those that don’t are either inaccurate (by virtue of being poorly edited at the time of creation on MO) or because they are just invalid (e.g., unpublished).
1. That autonyms don’t require authors. Agreed 100%.
2. That Persoon’s authorship of Amanita is known/implied. I agree that it’s possible to figure out the author without including it in the name – such is the case with nearly every name on MO! But there are reasons to display the authors of names. The limitations of those reasons apply to Amanita Pers. too. Why not just call it Amanita?
3. That section names are binomials. They are indeed two-part names (Article 21.1), but they are not binomials according to the definitions of the Code. I don’t want to police your usage of the term, but only to make it clear that species and sections are treated differently by the Code. The word that applies to both is combination.
4. That we don’t list authors for both parts of two-part names. YES, I do believe this is implied by the Code.
5. That these points imply that “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” is nonsensical. I remain baffled by this conclusion. I know that you know that Amanita is the genus, Pers. is the author of Amanita, and sect. Amanita is the type-containing section within Amanita Pers.
6. That “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” is missing the author whose work created the section. YES, I 100% agree that that is an interesting, useful, substantial piece of information that logically could be included. But reducing it even further to “Amanita sect. Amanita” doesn’t help that. Nobody in this thread has argued against the rules that dictate this.
7. That there are to be “no attributions of any kind for autonyms”. This is a phrase that I assume you made up because it’s in direct, clear, unequivocable contradiction with Article 22, Ex. 1 & Ex. 6.
I would like to address an argument against my conclusion here, which is perhaps the completion of #4 above:
(8.) That we don’t cite genus authors in non-autonym sections, so it’s inconsistent to cite them in autonym sections. YES, there is absolutely a slightly weird difference there. But I do not believe that that weirdness is a problem that warrants either (a) clunkily citing authors for both parts of all sectional combinations and presumably violating the code, or (b) throwing out the useful genus author citation on autonyms and not being able to give a straight answer to the question “Do MO names include author citations or not?”
With this comment, ICN Article 22 has now been directly cited at least 5 times in this thread. Although it only proves that “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” is acceptable, I feel that this discussion about what to do on MO would have been done much quicker if the article had been read carefully by more participants.
…and you may call me Igor. :-)
From your previous thread:
“You’re right that sectional epithets have authors that can be attributed accordingly, except for autonyms, which have no author. Everyone has agreed on that through this whole thread.
You’re wrong that that has any bearing whatsoever on “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita”, which contains an author attribution to the genus, not to the section.”
Herbert is not wrong, IMO.
First, autonyms don’t require any authors, which has already been established (vide infra).
Second, we already know that Persoon IS the author of Amanita in the sense of how the nomeclatural and taxonomic identity of this genus is known today. In other words, Persoon’s name is already implied, whenever binomials are used.
Third, it’s been convincingly argued in this thread that sectional names are true binomials. The reason I gave is that sections are OTUs, too, just like species.
Fourth, we don’t list two authors in binomials, period – e.g., one for genus and one for species. That’s why we shouldn’t write "Amanita [author #1] sect. Caesareae [author #2] in my previous example, even though somehow you think it strengthens your cause. :-)
Ergo, once again, attribution to the genus only in your case of “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” makes no sense at all – as per above – and also because () you are omitting (for whatever reason) the sectional attribution (whoever it is who gave rise to sect. Amanita), which is much more important, for it references the origin and the taxonomic identity of this OTU.
Repeat after me: “No attributions of any kind for autonyms”. :-) The only correct name is Amanita sect. Amanita.
I don’t know how else to explain myself to you, Jacob, but I hope it’s not your intention to now confuse me with my own thoughts as means to win this argument. :-)
1. I don’t understand “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita doesn’t make sense from the application of the autonym rule”. Did you read my explanation?
2. “Amanita Pers. sect. Caesareae Singer ex Singer” is an interesting thought. I don’t know what the ICN would say about it and I don’t have any personal feelings about it either. It is a different question than “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita”, though.
3. Yes, everyone agrees 100% that “Amanita sect. Amanita Pers.” is incorrect.
I was thinking about this from a different perspective for I don’t have a thorough knowledge of the ICN rules other than the patterns I can recognize from their proper usage in the literature.
My logic based on the fact that ranks between genera and species are of taxonomic import because they may justifiably reflect the complex structure of a genus to those who understand it and want to clarify it, as it is the case with Amanita. Here we have sections, for instance, that perhaps represent a valid operating taxomic unit, a subclade that is supported by both the morphology (origiinally) and molecular phylogeny (subsequently). Their names are binomial because sections are authored just like any other OTU consisting of more than one word, and thus should bear the author(s)’ name(s), unless they are autonyms (as per the ICN rules). This is also important in case a disambiguation (“in the sense of”) is necessary, e.g., in Leccinum that has more than one taxonomic structure depending on which author you quote.
Now, Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita doesn’t make sense from both the application of the autonym rule and also from the fact that if the rule is not enforced you would then (by Pulk’s logic) need to create something like Amanita Pers. sect. Caesareae Singer ex Singer, which makes no sense at all.
At the same time Amanita sect. Amanita Pers. doesn’t make sense either from both the autonym rule point and also from the fact the Pers. had not authored this sectional name (who did though?).
I am done with this conversation. I’d like to say it has been fun trying to have a dialogue with you.
Your definition of a binomial as a combination with two parts makes sense, perhaps more than the ICN’s definition. I think that’s moot.
You’re right that sectional epithets have authors that can be attributed accordingly, except for autonyms, which have no author. Everyone has agreed on that through this whole thread.
You’re wrong that that has any bearing whatsoever on “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita”, which contains an author attribution to the genus, not to the section.
You’re wrong in claiming we’re not equally allowed to cite names with and without authors. See Article 46.1, which introduces the way authorship citation works: “it may be desirable… to cite the author(s) of the name concerned…. In so doing, the following rules apply.” Beyond that, in examples throughout the page (Ex. 2, 3, 4…), author citations are a supplement to a name, not part of the name itself. The ICN Glossary definition also includes the clause “when used”.
no changes needed here.
The ranks of “subgenus” down to “species” (this includes the rank of “section” and “subsection”) are considered binomial (two-part) names. The ranks of subspecies and below are trinomial names.
The statement: “3) You’re allowed to write “Amanita sect. Vaginatae (Fr.) Quél.” as well as “Amanita sect. Vaginatae”, with no author.”, is false.
Sectional epithets have authors that should be attributed accordingly (unless they’re an autonym).
Finally, autonyms should only be based on valid names. Hope this helps.
Erlon, points we agree on:
- An author citation is not required here (or anywhere).
- An author citation for a section would follow the section.
- Autonyms per se do not have an author.
- “Amanita sect. Amanita Pers.” would be incorrect.
- Including a citation here for the publication that establishes/implies it is a good idea.
Points we disagree on:
- That Amanita sect. Amanita is a “binomial”. I am not sure whether this bears on this argument, but it is not a binomial according to the ICN glossary: https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/glossary.html (binomials are only for genus+species).
- That it is redundant to include the author of the genus in this name. I cannot see a way that “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” is redundant if “Amanita Pers.” is not.
- Therefore, that there is any reason NOT to display this name on MO as “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita”. For common sense reasons TO do so, see my previous two comments. For legal reasons TO do so, see the extremely clear examples in the two linked ICN articles.
Joe, I agree that Erlon’s and my views here are incompatible at the moment (except for giving users a toggle to display/hide generic authors on autonyms, which would be silly), and I’ll respect leaving the names alone. I am optimistic about us coming to an agreement with enough discussion here though, as we are both logical people. I also agree that MB and IF are wrong in their placement of the author.
Dear MO Autonym Debaters:
- Some of MO’s most valued users have strongly held, but incompatible, views. I doubt there’s a compromise which can be reasonably programmed. I’ll run the issue by the other developers. But we’ll probably need to make a choice which will make someone less than happy. I hope that once that choice is made, we can just move on. Let’s not emulate our politicians.
- Until it’s settled, I request that users not add or remove authors from autonyms.
- FWIW, both IF and MB omit an author after the genus in infrageneric autonyms (see examples in Comments below).
- IF and MB are clearly wrong in another way — if interpreted as modeling the correct cite. “Amanita sect. Amanita Pers.” is wrong because autonyms must “repeat [the] generic name unaltered as its epithet, not followed by an author citation”. ICN Art. 22.1 (emphasis added); see also ICN Art. 26.1 (infraspecific autonyms do not have author after epithet).
- Re Herbert’s suggestion about citation for the publication that created the autonym, I suggest putting that into the Notes on Taxonomy.
I agree with Rod. The name is a binomial. The author citation if it was required would come after the second part of the name only. Autonyms have no author citation.
It is redundant to include the author of the genus in a binomial; as it has already been established intrinsically.
Finally, it would be a good idea to include the citation for the publication that created the autonym. In this case it would be the first time Amanita was divided at the sectional level. Rod may have an idea for the proper citation in this instance.
*The ability of the MO software to format the names correctly is a separate issue but not important here. Sorry for adding to any confusion
1) Cui et al does not list “Amanita sect. Amanita” without an author, where other equivalent names have an author. It lists “sect. Amanita”, below/within the genus, without an author. I agree 100% that this section, as a section, does not have an author.
2) “Amanita sect. Amanita” is not a simpler solution. The simpler solution is to give all taxa authors where possible. It is absurdly complex to choose an arbitrary set to be authorless.
3) The ICN having it both ways does not imply that one of the ways might be unacceptable. The (incredibly carefully composed) ICN having it both ways means both ways ARE acceptable. You’re allowed to write “Amanita sect. Vaginatae (Fr.) Quél.” as well as “Amanita sect. Vaginatae”, with no author. On MO, “Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita” should have an author for the same reason that all other taxa get one.
1. As the ICN has it both ways (see my Comment below) and at least some recognized experts use the simpler solution, let’s please use the simpler way: no author for autonym (unless needed to disambiguate).
2. “Editors” is an an automatically generated list of users who have edited a Name. There isn’t a way to remove someone from the list.
…paper on the taxonomy of the family Amanitaceae (Cui et al.; Fungal Diversity 2018, 91: 5-230) also has it simply as Amanita sect. Amanita, i.e. without the author. Ditto for Amanita subgen. Amanita. All other taxonomic ranks in Amanita above species but below genus have authors in this reference. The taxonomic scheme for Amanita is listed on p.19 of Cui et al.
Please remove my name from the list of editors for Amanita section Amanita.
The ICN examples Joe provides directly contradict it.
So does IndexFungorum. http://www.indexfungorum.org/...
So does MycoBank.
So does common sense:
Basidiomycota R.T. Moore
Pluteineae Aime, Dentinger & Gaya
Amanitaceae E.-J. Gilbert
Amanita sect. Amanita
Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam.
Amanita muscaria subsp. muscaria
…is absurdly incongruent.
1. If you think that the autonym may/should not include the author of the higher taxon — after that taxon, and before the division — then simply omit/delete the contents of the Author field in MO’s Name page for the autonym, resulting in:
X sect. X
X Author sect. X
That seems simpler to me. But I can’t figure out what the ICN wants. Compare, e.g., ICN Art. 22, Ex. 1 & 2 (‘Rhododendron L. subg. Rhododendron versus “M. subg. Malpighia” and “M. sect. Malpighia”). Or maybe I’m missing your point.
2. In describing a “software issue”, you mention clicking on “A. muscaria subsp. muscaria (L. : Fr.) Lam.” Do you see that string somewhere in MO?
What I’m referring to is the nomenclature box is incorrect and makes it appear as if Pers. authored the sectional division (autonym). I’m not sure there is an easy way to fix this without altering the MO source code.
However, this poses the interesting question of why we don’t include the author of the higher ranking taxa in (non-autonym) subtaxa. I don’t see why the lack of an author for the autonym would require an author citation for the higher taxa it’s based on. e.g. Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam. subsp. flavivolvata Singer
This seems redundant.
Rod seems to make the same error here, with “A. muscaria subsp. muscaria (L. : Fr.) Lam.”: http://www.amanitaceae.org/...
This also appears to be a software issue, when you click on “A. muscaria subsp. muscaria (L. : Fr.) Lam.” it is corrected to Amanita muscaria (L. : Fr.) Lam. var. muscaria
Looks pretty simple that Amanita Pers. sect. Amanita is correct.
What I mean by “Nomenclature box consistent with page header” is:
1. If the Nomenclature box lists an author, so does the page heading.
2. If the Nomenclature box has no author, neither does the page heading.
Do you mean something different?
And that’s what I see for https://mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name/23952:
Do you see something different on that page?
Here is another example; Amanita Pers. subgenus Amanita: https://mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name/23952?q=bLc7
Notice that the heading is not consistent with the nomenclature box, the later making it appear as if Pers. explicitly authored the subgenus (an autonym):
Name: Amanita subgenus Amanita
If an author is explicitly input in the Author field of the Nomenclature box, then the author will appear in the page heading. And if it’s an autonym MO will display that author after the genus, e.g. Genus Author sect. Autonym.
But if there’s nothing in the Author field of the Nomenclature box, then MO won’t include an author in the page heading: just Genus sect. Autonym
I can’t figure out whether ICN nonetheless wants/allows author to be included. See https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_22.html (some examples include author, other don’t).
I think the problem may be that when you click on the name page and look in the nomenclature box the author appears (incorrectly) after the sectional division. This is inconsistent with the page header and appears to be a format issue.
I had retained author of parent to be consistent with how others are handling autonyms in MO. But I like it better without author: cleaner display, simpler.
Created: 2009-11-25 09:53:00 PST (-0800) by Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
Last modified: 2018-12-30 10:54:45 PST (-0800) by Erlon (Herbert Baker)
Viewed: 2334 times, last viewed: 2019-01-15 09:18:34 PST (-0800)