Taxonomic Swap 68116
(Guardado el 02/01/2020)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
Hm. IAPT has celebrated the New Year by forgetting to renew their security certificates, making the Code a bit hard to get at, but this seems to be the relevant bit:
"In named hybrids, the multiplication sign × belongs with the name or epithet but is not actually part of it, and its placement should reflect that relation. The exact amount of space, if any, between the multiplication sign and the initial letter of the name or epithet should depend on what best serves readability."
The text of the code seems to use the spaceless format, but IMO this gives us warrant to use a space. I don't have a particular position on which form "best serves readability", but the spaced form is compatible with the form used in IPNI and POWO and, if omitted, would result in a large number of pointless taxon deviations, so I am inclined to maintain it.
Dear Christopher, to be true, i surely support this way of formatting, as this is clearly visible and logic to me.
However, some most smart colleagues came to the decision of ICBN (don't ask me what article, am not interested in) that "Genus ×hybridname" was right but not "G. × h."
An unlogic, yet stupid decision in my mind, had a discussion with Peter de Lange from NZ a while ago when i actively curated taxa inclusive hybrids.
But please don't try to discuss the issue with him, as he will insist to follow the code strictly and treats it like a general law to be followed by anyone in any case.
Surely the most helpful to loose oneself in such important details for not to see how rapidly we are destroying this wonderful world we are inhabiting.