For the purposes of clarity and precision, it is surely best to give the full binomen plus authority at first mention in the manuscript, after which, it would be acceptable to use just the binomen. This way there can be no confusion, provided the correct name (i.e. taxonomically valid) is used.

Hi Alexis,

each journal often indicates in the author's guidelines how to quote the species (e.g. how write it in the abstract or in the title, first mention in the text, etc.). I recommend you find previous papers published in your target journal and check how they write them.

The first time a species' name appears in a manuscript its full accepted name is normally used, and then the abbreviated binomial form the following times it appears.

Regards

In general case in writing the manuscript at first refer valid accepted binomen and authors e.g. Padina pavonica (Linnaeus) Thivy. In futher citing the same taxa in the same publication you may refer taxa as Padina pavonica or P. pavonica but only in cases when such is not cause some misunderstanding in your artilce. Also read the jornal's requirements for citing nomenclature names.

Dear Lolas

You can write species name and within brackets you can mention the name of discoverer, e.g. Labeo rohita (Hamilton, 1882) or Labeo rohita (Hamilton 1822).

I think this is not a question of options. Raquel answer is almost perfect: "each journal "should" indicate in the author's guidelines how to quote the species." Most of them did it. Of course, Andrew is right if we regard the facts.

Thank you all for your contributions so far (and so fast!!). The truth is my question goes a bit further from the writing of a manuscript, in order to get published in a journal. I was really looking if there is a universally accepted way of writing. If for example someone wants to write something as official as a book or just post a comment in Scientific Social Platform (such as this!!), which of the two options would be more appropriate. It is more of a philosophical question rather than a practical one!

Again, thank you all for your contributions! I am looking forward to hearing some more!

Just to be safe, always present the full valid species name, in binomial nomenclature, including information about the person(s) who described the species. Do this in the first instance that the species name is mentioned in any paper or publication. For example, in a manuscript I am writing, I write "Alfaro cultratus (Regan 1908)" the first time that I mention the knife-edged livebearer. Subsequent to this, I write "A. cultratus" throughout. One exception to this general format is to re-write the full binomial (i.e. specific epithet), in this case "Alfaro cultratus," when mentioning the species name for the first time in a new section of a manuscript, following first use; otherwise, use the abbreviated form.

If this sounds at all confusing or you want more information on correct practices in using taxonomic nomenclature in scientific writing or discussions in biology, I would refer you to the updated website of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature (http://iczn.org/; this works for vertebrate and invertebrate animals, although other codes may need to be consulted for other types of organisms). In addition to official international codes, you might also look for a book resource on systematics and taxonomy to use as your reference, e.g. Biological Systematics by Randall Schuh or Describing Species by Judith Winston, or a book like Victoria McMillan's Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. For philosophical questions about taxonomy, probably also peruse journals like Philosophy of Biology, Zootaxa, or Taxon, etc. Good luck and happy learning.

Write it as full name including authors when mentioned first. Then, go with abbreviation. But be carefull, after dots (.), don't write it as abbreviated form. This time, you should write with its full genus name (binomial only)...

@Javaid - be careful with the use of brackets. What you describe is not correct. The authority given is the person who published the name, not necessarily the discoverer, although in some instances the two are the same.

Brackets around the authority are only used when the species has been moved from the original genus in which is was described. For example, the well known house fly is Musca domestica Linnaeus, 1758, but the drone fly is Eristalis tenax (Linnaeus, 1758). To a taxonomist the meaning is clear: Musca domestica is the original combination described by Linnaeus in 1758, but Eristalis tenax is not (the original combination was Musca tenax). To use the brackets in any other way is very misleading, because of what it infers.

Andrew has finally nailed the correct answer to this question. Essentially a species name is the genus+species+author/s+date. If ANY one of these variables differs then the taxon IS NOT the same as the other one. So when a writer wishes to identify the species at hand all of these parts of the name would ideally need to be given at first mention - with recourse to the use or non-use of brackets as Andrew noted. Any examination of comprehensivve checklists for birds or other taxa will reveal multiple taxa that appear to have the same binomial yet are based on different holotypes and can in fact be quite differing biological species. The format eg Dinornis giganteus Owen, 1843 (which relates to Owen's erection of this taxon in the Literary Gazette on 2 Dec 1843 in the genus Dinornis; compared to say Euryapteryx gravis (Owen, 1870) which means Owen erected the species -level taxon gravis in 1870 in an different genus (actually Dinornis)) is international and surpasses journal style which only should be related to referencing, which is another matter entirely.

For an example to two species that are similar see Apteryx maxima Buller,1891 (actually a Stewart Island Brown kiwi) which might be confused with Apteryx maxima Sclater and Hochstetter, 1861, which is a great-spotted kiwi. So in short authors and dates matter and so do brackets.

I would also add that not only a species name is the genus+species+author/s+date, but also author/s+ date is a reference to a scientific paper where the orignal species decsription was published. Therefore, this publication has to be added to the Literature cited in any paper that uses the species name in question.

The majority of the journals gives you the answer for your question (see Author´s Instructions). However, when nothing is mentioned, I chose to give the full name when firstly written and then just the species name. In some particular situations, I provided abundance tables (or with other data) with all full name species, avoiding to use the full name in the manuscript. Finally, you should use WoRMS or other database to confirm the validity of the species full names. If you have doubts regarding the species names construction, please, check the The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (http://iczn.org/code). All the best, Roberto

The answers given above are pretty comprehensive...but an additional thing to be aware of is that plant names are formed differently to animal names (and have different codes of nomenclature). As the original question pertained to Padina pavonica, then the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants is the appropriate one to consult in this instance (http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php) rather than the zoological code.

To answer your question specifically, I would refer to that taxon as "Padina pavonica (L.) Thivy" in the first instance and thereafter simply as P. pavonica. Cheers, Niamh

Please also remember that animals and plants have different rules concerning citation of authorities

A general rule is writing the full name at first mention, after which the generic epithet is abbreviated. The authority should also be given at first mention. The way this is presented varies with the instructions given by the journal to which you want to submit the manuscript but the answer I have given is the generally accepted form. Remember that your spellings MUST be correct and the name should follow the rules of nomenclature - generic epithet begins with an upper case alphabet and specific epithet with a lower case alphabet. See the rules applied to genus group names and species group names. I hope you find this response helpful.

Most comments above are correct and helpful. I would add the following notes:

1. species names (genus name plus specific epithet) should always be italicized (or underlined).

2. Andrew W. makes several important observations about author names in parentheses (xxxx), but he confusingly refers to these as brackets [xxxxx]. A name in parentheses indicates that the species is considered to belong in a genus different than the one in which it was originally described, as Andrew correctly states. However, a name or date in brackets [xxxx] indicates that the authorship or date of publcation has been determined by a first reviser or other nomenclator and that the authorship is not clear from the original publication.

3. If you are publishing a paper with many taxa named in it, a convenient way to include the names, authors and dates of publication is to present a table of "taxa studied" or something like that, which is referred to early in the text. This precludes the need to include authors and dates in the body of the text, and puts them all together in one place where they are easy to find for the reader.

In practice, it completely depends on the journal! However, as a taxonomist, I'd say the complete name, Genus+epithethon+Author+name (+reference in the reference list!), is the only way to be 100% sure what is meant. Misidentifications exepted...:D

We should all be encouraged to cite the author(s) and year at the first mention and also include this in the list of references. One of the reasons taxonomists get very few citations is that most journals and most authors will just include Padina pavonica, for example, in the text without any reference to author(s) etc. This is typical in non-taxonomic journals...

With reference to the answer given by Rense Haveman and John Jennings, I do not think that authorities are normally included in the list of references because they are not considered to be reference citations within the text of the document. If authorities are to be included in the list of references, there should be a statement that refers to the work in which the species was described; if there is not such a statement, the authority should not appear in the list of references. If you take the statement : "The Muraenidae is a new host family for Peracreadium Nicoll, 1909", for example, Nicoll, 1909 is the authority for the genus Peracreadium but that will not be included in the list of references. If however, the statement reads: "Nicoll (1909) erected the genus Peracreadium for ................., then Nicoll (1909) is a reference which can be included in the list of references. I have made this clarification because I was a bit confused by parts of the answers that you gave.

I can reply in the capacity of editor in chief of Annales Botanici Fennici, a Finnish botanical journal publishing papers in English. In ecological, and in fact in most taxonomic/systematic papers it is as a rule complelety redundant to give the authors of scientific names.Why should the reader know who are the authors of the name Hepatica nobilis when your paper deals with, say, the dispersal ecology of that species? If you are in a taxonomic paper describing a species that you decided to name Betula borealis and you compare it with its morphologically closest match, B. pendula, what necessary information would the author names of the latter name convey?

Thanks Leszek! However, it seems to me you are talking about specimen identification, not nomenclature. We cannot stop people making wrong identifications, as I am only too well aware, being a moss taxonomist / systematist. Of course, if there is a doubt that "Betula pendula sensu NN" is not the correct B. pendula it should be pointed out, but that has nothing to do with nomenclature. In China or elsewhere a name maybe used to a different species than in Europe, and one of the usages is wrong, but adding author names after the scientific name does nothing to solve the problem.

Thanks again Leszek. Yes I am aware there are and will be cases like that, but confusions can be avoided by referring to a flora, checklist or such, saying the names are used in the same sense as in the cited source.

First, the rules and traditions of author citations after scientific names differ substantially between botany and zoology. Answers given by a zoologist may not make much sense to a botanist, especially when (as in Leszek's example) secondary homonymy (a concept foreign to botanical nomenclature) is involved.

Second, there are two sets of "rules" to be followed in author citation: those of the relevant Code and those of the journal (or book) Editor. Author citation is dealt with in Art. 46 of the "botanical" Code, which starts as follows: "In publicarions, particularly those dealing with taxonomy and nomenclature, it may be desirable ... to cite the author(s) of the name concerned". Note the emphasis on taxonomic/nomenclatural papers as well as the verb used: "may be"; this fully supports Johannes's position.

Third, the rules for citing authorship of (plant) names, if it is to be cited at all, are complex. Non-systematists are well advised to follow the acknowledged standard of some taxonomic work (Flora or monograph), which, then, does indeed make author citation superflous (unless required by Editorial policy).

Fourth, the actual identity of the organism itself cannot be assessed properly by the author citation used, but only by study of a voucher (if extant) or, as a band-aid, by the taxon concept used in the acknowledged reference.

Fifth, the recent use of nomenclatural authorship to bulk up the citation rate of authors of new names is well intentioned, but will often benefit the wrong persons. Linnaeus couldn't care less to see his citation record driven to the stars by the listing of Linnaean binomials in vegetation relevés. Here again, Johannes's advice to cite a relevant source if, and only if, it really matters is the better answer.

There is a lot of information here, but to be concise - look at the journal's specifications. They will make it clear. It is likely not necessary to cite the protologue or anything of the sort, unless the work delves into the species' taxonomy.

I think it would be interesting and educational to read this article:

Wägele et al.-2011-The taxonomist - an endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival. Frontiers in Zoology, 8:25

hi

https://www.elsevier.com › Elsevier Connect

Dear Noor Edan Jarad, I am sorry but I do not understand what kind of an answer that is. Besides, Elsevier should not be promoted here, it is just doing damage to scientific publication.

How to cite the species names? Will depend of the Journal guidelines. If you have experience with different journals, you will know that journals do not have a unified style, some of then are very peculiar. So, keep on mind that, unvariously thee style you followed, the final word will be given by the Journal guidelines.

I am presently having a problem with this same issue too.

It is really not a problem, different journals have different styles. Check them out.

Journals may have their different styles, which might not necessarily be correct for formal scientific writing, in some cases. What I know to be correct is to write out the name fully at FIRST mention, that is, the generic and specific name, followed by the authority. Subsequently, the generic name can then be abbreviated, but never the specific epithet. The authority may or may not include the date, as is done by many authors these days, but I prefer to include the date.

Thelma and others, its is correct that you shoud write the name in full at first mention. However, the authorship of the name is usually redundant, it does not convey any significant information. Some have said giving the authorship of the name indicates you use the name in its original sense - but how can you know that? If you give a name like Corylus avellana L., have you studied the type specimen of that NAME (species do not have type specimens, names do) or read the protologue (= original description) and compared those with your specimens? I don't think so. Name authorships and dates should be given only in nomenclatural and some systematical/taxonomical papers, certainly not in ecological or such papers.

Enroth, I am a taxonomist and speaking/writing as one. What you think does not convey any significant information to you, conveys significant information to me and to those in my field. Other fields may have their peculiarities, which I may not argue with. You would note that I said, in my answer, that I said that "Journals may have their different styles, which might not necessarily be correct for formal scientific writing, in some cases".

Hello Thelma, if you check my ResearchGate records you will find out I am a taxonomis/systematist too and also editor in chief of a journal that publishes dozens of taxonomic/systematic papers every year. Well in this free world we are free to disagree, you do what you think is right and so will I.

Thanks. My best wishes.

Hi there, I am currently having the same problem. I am reading a book by Judith E. Winston, Describing Species: Practical Taxonomic Procedure for Biologists. I have some confusion regarding what the author wrote. Just like Andrew E. Whittington mentioned, the use of brackets (or parentheses as the author used) is very important in taxonomy. However, I am still unclear on how it differs when the genus name is changed. Do we still use the first discoverer's name? The paragraph mentioned in the book is in page 131. Many thanks in advance.

Farah, the name of the first discoverer (who described the species) must always be there. At least in botany.

Johannes Enroth, in terms of taxonomy, do not you think that one set rule should apply equally to every single scientific journal?

Marcin, absolutely but there are different practices in zoology and botany. Unfortunately. I am only familiar with the botanical rules.