New term - genericName about dwc HOT 26 CLOSED

genericName is in TCS.

Important to point out, which @mdoering sort of does, that genericName should only be used for combinations and that uninomials of generic rank themselves do not have a genericName.

from dwc.

I would say it is incorrect, so no further clarification.

from dwc.

We continuously struggle with the different use of dwc:genus for the accepted name and the binomial genus part in synonyms. For GBIF and the Catalogue of Life it help a lot if this would become an official dwc term instead of using the gbif namespace version.

What needs to be done to get this approved?

from dwc.

This proposal needs more evidence for demand (see the Vocabulary Maintenance Specification - Section 3.1). Anybody who is interested in the adoption/change of this term, should comment with their use case below. If demand is not demonstrated by the next annual review of open proposals (late 2020), this proposal will be dismissed.

from dwc.

Ping @mdoering

from dwc.

I still believe this is an important new terms allowing to deal with parsed names and a (genus) classification at the same time. How should demand be proven? It is in use already by CoL (dwca download format) and GBIF

from dwc.

I've also personally encountered several use cases where I thought this could be useful, but it has been a while.

from dwc.

I see this very useful all over the place. Anywhere where you deal with parsed names, i.e. dwc:specificEpithet is used. My only concern is that current users confuse it with dwc:genus which really has a different classification based definition.

from dwc.

@mdoering Can you propose a definition that would minimize the chances of confusion? Maybe with further examples and explanations for why they would be that way?

from dwc.

The current definition for dwc:genus is:

The full scientific name of the genus in which the taxon is classified.

This clearly means it is the classification which is meant, not the genus part of a bi/trinomial.
For the specificEpithet we currently have:

The name of the first or species epithet of the scientificName.

I would therefore propose for the new genericName term:

Definition: The name of the genus of the scientificName.

Comment: For synonyms the accepted genus and the genus part of the name are different. For example for Felis concolor dwc:genus is often considered Puma while dwc:genericName is Felis. dwc:genericName should be used together with dwc:specificEpithet and dwc:infraspecificEpithet to form a bi- or trinomial.

from dwc.

dwc:genericName falls into the category of "convenience terms" and should therefore be added to table 3.5 in the RDF Guide. It should not have a dwciri: analog.

from dwc.

It will be good to have this term, along with infragenericEpithet (#30) and cultivarEpithet (#41) in Darwin Core, as then TCS can borrow all 'parsed name' terms from Darwin Core. Happy with this definition (that is the first definition at the top of this issue).

from dwc.

Could someone please confirm if there is a mapping to ABCD?

from dwc.

ABCD 2 has GenusOrMonomial (with different XPaths for each nomenclatural code), so no equivalent for genusName.

from dwc.

This is an interesting concept that would help to highlight the current, accepted name (scientificName) in contrast to the original combination. This has been done by many taxonomists in their personal databases, I am sure, and is reflected (at least) in one larger project, Systema Dipterorum www.diptera.org, through the use of 'original genus' and 'genus' for genericName and genus, respectively.
In addition, it would allow to automatically add parentheses around author and year for species that have changed combination (if genericName is empty or genericName = genus -> no parentheses; if genericName ≠ genus -> add parentheses [at least in Zoology with which I am familiar]).
scientificNameAuthorship is currently defined as 'The authorship information for the scientificName formatted according to the conventions of the applicable nomenclaturalCode.' and the examples given '(Torr.) J.T. Howell, (Martinovský) Tzvelev, (Györfi, 1952)' indicate that parentheses need to be included here. However, I can imagine that there are many cases in which no parentheses are given even when the species has changed combination in the past.

from dwc.

The term is designed to reflect the genus part of scientificName, not necessarily the original combination. It is primarily intended for scientificNames that are not accepted and thus have a different genus than given via dwc:genus (which is defined to always represent the currently accepted genus).

from dwc.

@mdoering Thanks, I hope my comments above don't muddle the whole discussion now.

from dwc.

For the ABCD mapping: As Niels already commented, there is GenusOrMonomial (https://abcd.tdwg.org/terms/#genusOrMonomial). So no equivalent, but an element that is usually mapped to the gerneric part of a name.

from dwc.

The term is designed to reflect the genus part of scientificName, not necessarily the original combination. It is primarily intended for scientificNames that are not accepted and thus have a different genus than given via dwc:genus (which is defined to always represent the currently accepted genus).

Does any of this suggest a further clarification in the Comments?

from dwc.

Thank you @nielsklazenga and @mdoering . The proposal remains with no further changes at this time.

from dwc.

This thread has revived a question I had a while back. Does the genus or genusName part or the specificEpithet part of a hybrid plant species name include the hybrid marker × ?

INCafp Article H.3, Item H.3.1 prescribes that "For nomenclatural purposes, the hybrid nature of a taxon is indicated by placing the multiplication sign × before the name of an intergeneric hybrid or before the epithet in the name of an interspecific hybrid." Item H.3.1A adds "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." For example, × Pyraria auricularis A.Chev. and Nepenthes × hybrida Hort.Veitch. ex Mast.

If the hybrid marker is not included within genusName or specificEpithet, I believe new Darwin Core terms are needed, (e.g. hybridGenusMarker and hybridSpeciesMarker,) in order to include these symbols in the full ScientificName for a hybrid plant name. Hybrid names commonly appear in botanical data sets and exchanging these hybrid names in practice has brought up this issue in Darwin Core.

Is it too late to add these hybrid marker terms to the considerations of genusName and specificEpithet?

from dwc.

@ckmillerjr I had created a proposal long time ago for exactly this: #43
But it got closed by lack of demand in April. The thread actually has good reasons to have that term and not to use the epithet and genus fields for it. Without it though I would think it should be recommended to place the x in front of the name part.

from dwc.

from dwc.

from dwc.

Repeating the still standing definition & comments with updated examples:

Definition: The genus part of the scientificName without authorship.
Comment: For synonyms the accepted genus and the genus part of the name may be different. The term genericName should be used together with specificEpithet to form a binomial and with infraspecificEpithet to form a trinomial. The term genericName should only be used for combinations. Uninomials of generic rank do not have a genericName.
Examples: Felis in case of scientificName=Felis concolor, acceptedNameUsage=Puma concolor & genus=Puma.

from dwc.

Done.

from dwc.