(232-244) Thirteen Proposals to Clarify the Use of 'in' and 'ex' in Author Citations Author(s): R. K. Brummitt Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 145-155 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1223327 . Accessed: 06/07/2012 10:13 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. http://www.jstor.org TAXON VOLUME 42 145 (232-244) Thirteen proposals to clarify the use of 'in' and 'ex' in author citations R. K. Brummitt1 Afterstruggling for yearsto makesome sense out of otherpeople's interpretations of when we shouldapply 'ex' citationsand when not to do so, I concludedsome time ago that the Code is highly ambiguousand inadequatein this matter.Not only will differentpeople well versed in nomenclatureoften come to diametricallyopposed conclusionsbased on the presentwording, but currentpractices in publishingnew names show repeatedlythat botanistsdo not appreciatethe difficultieswhich exist. Compilationof Indexkewensis produces a continuousflow of problemcases. At the 1987 BerlinCongress I proposedthat a Special Committeeon 'in' or 'ex' be set up, which was done. OriginallyI was not a memberof this Committee,but in early 1990 I suppliedthe secretaryover 40 fully documentedproblem cases, andwas favouredin returnby receivingmuch of the Committee'scorrespondence. This dem- onstratedthat, as might have been predicted,the Committeemembers were divided on interpretationof even the most fundamentalissue of when to use an 'ex' citation. On some issues thereseemed to be generalagreement. At the time of writing this, the Committee'scorrespondence had lapsed for a ratherlong time and not even a draftreport had been produced.A few days before the closing date for proposals,too late for consultationwith Committeemembers, I was invited to submitmy own proposals,which are presentedhere. In doing this I have tried to reflect some of the variousviews of Committeemembers which I am aware of, and not only my own personalviews. Resolutionof currentdoubts and ambiguitiesis, in my opinion,an urgentnecessity at a time when stabilityof nomen- clatureis undermajor discussion. Five generalpoints, which affect the wordingof more thanone proposal,may be made: 1. The presentArt. 46.2 (requiring'in') and 46.3 (requiring'ex') are not contrasting or mutuallyexclusive, and in manycases bothcould be equallyapplied, giving rise to presentambiguities. 2. A majorityof the Committeeagreed, I believe, thatdecisions should be madeonly on the internalevidence of the publicationconcerned, and not on externalcircum- stantialevidence. 3. Since the requirementsfor valid publication of namesof new taxaare very different from those for new combinationsand nominanova, the wordingof Art.46.2 and 46.3 should reflect this and allow for two differentsituations. At presentthese paragraphsseem to have been writtenwithout any considerationof new combina- tions andnomina nova. 4. The examples currentlygiven in the Code are inadequatebecause they do not indicatewhat the protologuesaid or why thatparticular authorship is appropriate. 5. The presentCode is at best ambiguousand at worstmisleading as to whether'in' (and what follows it) is partof the authorcitation or of a bibliographicreference 1 TheHerbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AE, U.K. 146 FEBRUARY 1993 followingit. This needsto be clarifiedand the wordingof paragraphs46.2 and46.3 adjustedaccordingly. Seven majorissues have been identified,and proposalsare made below. Draft examplesare providedfor considerationof the EditorialCommittee if the proposals areaccepted. 1. Simple cases of 'in' or 'ex' for new taxa Out of many thousandsof potentialexamples, that of Tephrosiacephalantha has been quotedin discussionsand has become a test case. The name was publishedin the account of Leguminosaesubfam. Papilionoideaewritten by J. G. Baker (in Oliver, Fl. Trop. Afr. 2: 119. 1871). The entry reads "39. T. cephalantha,Welw. mss." followed by a full descriptionand citationof one collection by "Dr. Wel- witsch".The descriptionis very comparablewith those of otherspecies of the genus in the account,and was evidentlywritten by Baker.Should we now cite authorship of the nameas "Welwitsch"or "Welwitschex Baker"? In discussionof such cases in the Committee'scorrespondence, two approaches emerged.One is representedby two commentsfrom differentmembers: "I think much of the confusion surrounding'in' and 'ex' has been engenderedby authors' statementsnot having been taken at face value. If in a paper by A and B a new species is attributedto A or B or C, why queryit?" and "I thinkwe have to assume in moder times thatwhen an authorsays thata namein his workis to be attributed to another,we are to acceptthat - unless thereis definiteevidence to the contrary". This approachwould apparentlyfavour acceptanceof T. cephalanthaWelwitsch withoutan 'ex' citation,based on an assumptionthat by citing Welwitschafter the name Baker was implying that Welwitschsupplied both the name and description (Art.46.2) in the absenceof evidenceto the contrary. The alternativeview is that Baker was the publishingauthor, who ascribedthe name to anotherperson (Welwitsch),and that Art.46.3 thereforeapplies and the name shouldbe given as T. cephalanthaWelwitsch ex Bakeror just T. cephalantha Baker. This seems to be the view which most botanistswould take today. The example gives only one of many names writtenby Welwitsch on his specimens which were takenup with a validatingdescription by othersand which are foundin moder literaturewith an 'ex' citation or with the publishingauthor as the sole author. Perhapsthe key to these differentapproaches lies in the commentquoted above which says that "we have to assume in modern times ...". When this situation arises in currentliterature - whichit frequentlydoes - it would seem to complicatematters unnecessarilyif we use an 'ex' citationwhich the publishingauthor in most cases would not have expectedor wantedand which he could have avoidedwith a little morecare in presentingthe facts. But if we were to applythis liberalattitude evenly throughoutwe would reversecurrent practice in citing authorsof many thousandsof names and more or less eliminate 'ex' citationsaltogether. We would be crediting authorshipof plant namesto manybotanists who never describedplants and merely wrote manuscriptnames on specimens.The presentCode makes no distinctionbe- tween "ancient"and moder authors,and Art.46.2, which avoids the 'ex' citation, clearly requiresthat the authorcredited with the name should have suppliedthe TAXONVOLUME 42 147 description.(The discussionof issue 4, 'Internalevidence only?', becomes relevant here.) Unless thereis to be a majorshift in currentpractice, it seems thatinsistence on authorshipof the descriptionshould remain.Both viewpointsare cateredfor in the proposalsbelow. In Committeecorrespondence it has also been said that 'ex' citationsshould only be used when authorA had used a name withoutvalidly publishingit (eithereffect- ively publishingit withoutall the data necessaryfor validationor just using it in a manuscriptor on a herbariumspecimen), and author B publishedvalidating informa- tion. This would mean thatone mightnot be able to determineauthorship of a name withoutthoroughly searching all a person'sunpublished manuscripts and all herba- riumspecimens he saw to determinewhether he 'used' the name.And paradoxically if authorA never wrote the name down anywhereand communicatedonly verbally with the authorB, he would be creditedwith full authorshipof the name (A in B), whereasif he wrote it somewhereon any piece of paperhe would not be credited with full authorshipand could appearonly as A ex B! This seems neitherpractical nor sensible. In contrastwith Tephrosiacephalantha, there are many cases in which both the name and descriptionwere attributedby one authorto another.There are different ways in which this may be done, as shown by the examples included with Prop. (233) below. All includea clearstatement that the descriptionis by the personwho is not creditedwith overall authorshipof the publication,and all shouldresult in Art. 46.2 being appliedand avoidingan ex citation.It may be noted that the exampleof Orchisrotundifolia Banks ex Pursh,currently given in the Code as a case whereArt. 46.3 applies,should actually be an exampleof a case whereArt. 46.2 applies,result- ing in 0. rotundifoliaBanks, under interpretations of the presentCode in eitherProp. (232) or (233) below, since Purshappended Banks's name afterthe name and after the description. The lack of contrastbetween Art.46.2 and 46.3, and the consequentambiguity, seems to be causedby the emphasisin 46.2 on who suppliedthe name and descrip- tion (circumstantialevidence may be required to determine this), while 46.3 emphasiseswho publishedthe name.In manycases one authorsupplied the informa- tion and anotherpublished it, so thatboth paragraphs apply equally to the same case. Circumstantialevidence