4 replies to this topic

[Foogoo]

Why are some scientific names almost always accompanied by the original namer? For example, Solenopsis invicta Buren or Camponotus vicinus Mayr? I don't recall commonly seeing this with other animals.

[Teleutotje]

Normally, in a scientific publication, the first time you use a name, you give genus, species, author and year the name was published. So Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972. Later on, when no confusion can appear, you can use short form of genus and then species, here S. invicta. Whenever confusion can appear you go back to full citation. In non-scientific literature, author and year are not mentioned but when confusion strikes, what animal do they mean???

[Foogoo]

Normally, in a scientific publication, the first time you use a name, you give genus, species, author and year the name was published. So Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972. Later on, when no confusion can appear, you can use short form of genus and then species, here S. invicta. Whenever confusion can appear you go back to full citation. In non-scientific literature, author and year are not mentioned but when confusion strikes, what animal do they mean???

Let me put it this way, why do I still see Solenopsis invicta Buren, Camponotus vicinus Mayr, etc. frequently in relatively recent publications when I don't think I've seen it for any references other than ants. Is it because the taxonomy of ants is still in flux? Or is this pretty common for most insects?

[James C. Trager]

It is common for other groups in the scientific literature, especially those dealing with taxonomy. Increasingly, and with the growing popularity and diversity of natural history guides, author names are not used. What you see for ants is a reflection of the fact that the ant literature is still mostly of a technical sort.
Yes, ant taxonomy is very much still a work in progress!

[JakobS]

I see it throughout the scientific literature for both insect and vertebrate. Its definitely most important for taxonomy and systematics in general.