Template talk:Pre-Linnaean botanist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion of a template for a pre-Linnaean-botanist. First let's assume that the template for a post-1753 botanist should look like this:

The standard author abbreviation {{{1}}} may be used in citing a botanical name to indicate the involvement of this person.

Note that the involvement of a person in the publication of a name may be in one of several ways. He need not have described the plant (or even seen the plant) and need not have published anything. He need not even be a botanist. In fact, the same list applies to names for fungi also: in which case it would be wrong to speak of a "plant". Also, author citation is used for names at any rank, so it may apply to a group of plants like a family rather than any single plant. Still for whatever part he did play, he may be cited, and there is only the one list of standard abbreviations.

The standard author abbreviation {{{1}}} may be used in citing a botanical name to indicate the involvement of this person. However, this is a pre-Linnaean botanist. As names of plants published before 1 May 1753 today have no official status the abbreviation of his name will seldom be used.

Note that there is a slight danger in describing botanists as pre-Linnaean, Linnaean and post-Linnaean. In reality there is a single date (1 May 1753) and names published before that date have no status. There are botanists who lived in the eighteenth century and who published names both before and after 1753; and these names have to be evaluated in that light. Such a botanist, contemporary to Linnaeus, is difficult to describe.

ru:Шаблон:Долиннеевский ботаник

Well, first, I do agree that to describe a botanist as post- or pre-Linnaean sometimes is difficult but the main point is not to make a statement on the validity of all names used or proposed by that botanist but to underscore the lower probability to see the author abbreviation for a given botanist in some publication.

I am mostly interested in the pre-Linnaean botanists, so I was puzzled when browsing through the articles on, say, John Ray, Leonhart Fuchs, or Hieronymus Bock I saw the standard template for botanists-with-author-abbreviations even though it was perfectly clear that whatever plant names they used or coined in their works nobody will attribute these names to them now. My attempt to create the new template was aimed at clarifying this issue.

Second, I am afraid that involvement, even though it is probably the best way to describe the situation, is a rather vague term.

Summarising the comments by Curtis Clark made at my talk page as well I'd propose to rephrase the template as follows:

Looks horrible. Was it worth doing? Alexei Kouprianov 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that "involvement" sounds rather vague, but it would be desriptive. The new proposal is indeed inaccurate. It is possible to cite botanical names which do include abbreviations of pre-Linnaean botanists. It won't happen often, but it may. How about:

The standard author abbreviation {{{1}}} may be used to indicate this person in citing a botanical name. As names of plants published before 1 May 1753 have no official status the abbreviation of this pre-Linnaean botanist will seldom be used.

Brya 19:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better than my version. If nobody protests, I paste this into the template and try using on the pre-Linnaeans. Shouldn't we review the template for the post-Linnaeans too? Alexei Kouprianov 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have agreement! As to the template:botanist, it certainly needs revision. I stayed away from it because sometimes such topics have a history and people are sensitive. I don't know if this is the case here. Maybe it is worthwhile to inquire. It could run:

The standard author abbreviation {{{1}}} may be used to indicate this person in citing a botanical name.

Brya 15:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)