F. Authors of syntaxon names

Introduction

Science is that intellectual activity the object of wich is to understand nature -including the human species, human thought and human society- through experimentation and observation in accordance with systematic and objective criteria. This understanding must be ordered in such a way as to derive predictive models and laws from the diversity observed. In this sense, the ordering of biological diversity into typological models is eminently scientific. Biological taxonomy is tah area of sience wich aims to order intelectual abstractions representing the typological diversity of flora, fauna and vegetation, thus permiting inteligible scientific comunication.

A given taxonomic model is the result of criteria applied, and these in turn are the result of the prior objective knowledge of scientists, and the convergence of their opinions. For this reason taxonomic models have evolve over time, becoming increasingly objective and precise, as well as increasingly stable. The instrumental value of these models permits further scientific advences. In line with this Ayala (1996) states in reference to plants that "the need for systematic studies has never been greater than at present", for reasons ranging from their fundamental importance for evolutionary biology to "the aesthetic emotion and ethnic identity that they satisfy".

Nomenclature is the final step in the process of classification. The name is the label attached to a concept, simplifying its communication; not the object or the idea represented, but rather its representative. In this sense names are analogous to paper money, which has no intrinsic value but simply represents a promise to pay. For this reason taxonomic names are accompanied by the name of their originator and the year of publication, so that at any time the precise meaning of the concept can be confirmed.

In the biological sciences (Botany, Zoology, Microbiology), nomenclature is governed by field-specific codes which derive from analogous principles and which resolve existing problems in similar ways. This convergence has recently materialized in the Biocode project promoted by the International Union of Biological Sciences, whose aim is to provide orientation about various issues relating to biological nomenclature. As the youngest of the biological sciences, Phytosociology has been the last to develop a code of nomenclature, the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (ICPN), the first version of which was published 25 years ago, the latest in the year 2000 (Weber et al., 2000). This third version states (Definition 12) that: "The term author citation refers in this Code to the representation of the name of the author(s) that validly published or validated the syntaxon name, followed by the year of the valid publication or validation". Article 46 justifies this approach: "In order to ensure that the indication of the name of a syntaxon is exact and complete, the name of the author (names of authors) who first validly published or validated this name together with the year of valid publication or validation must be quoted".

The number of authors in a field is of course roughly proportional to the number of entities described. In the nomenclature of plants and fungi, Brummitt & Powell (1992) have counted almost 30,000 authors over 250 years of botanical nomenclature. This number greatly exceeds the number of syntaxon authors, as expected for a nomenclatural system which is much younger and which groups species into syntaxa representing a higher level of ecological organization. Even so, problems arise in the transcription and identification of syntaxon authors. Izco (1997) has previously detailed the conflicts arising from author names with the same spelling, and has suggested several approaches to solve these problems. In a more recent publication, the same author (Izco, 2000) summarized with examples the diversity of author names for a single taxon (Izco, 2000). Now, for the first time, the current ICPN includes a recommendation (Recommendation 46B) on possible conflicts between author names and their resolution; however, this recommendation does not solve all possible conflicts. Before this problem becomes too serious, it is of interest to attempt to solve existing conflicts, to develop procedures for the standardization of names, and to promote the creation of an "author bank". The sooner the better! In this connection, the present publication aims to deal with problems relating to author citation, and to propose guidelines for the standardization of author names that already appear in the phytosociological literature.

The standardization of syntaxon author names proposed here is based in the criteria of Brummitt & Powell (op. cit.), which were in turn based in analogous previous studies from different fields (vascular plants, fungi, ferns, bryophytes, etc.) and on the conclusions of various informal working groups.

Normalization of author and syntaxon names

The normalization of names in phytosociology follows the same general rule as in other sciences: the use of the author's first surname or abbreviation thereof, with or without initials. However, this approach is not universally applicable, above all for authors (living or dead) who are already known by other forms. In such cases it may be considered justifiable to use the existing form (e.g. the author's two surnames, initials of first names, etc.). Nevertheless, there is clearly a need for normalization of these basic principles, with absolute values and flexible criteria of application.

Principles.

The normalization is based in a number of absolute basic principles:

1. The Principle of Universality. Normalization affects all author names for syntaxa regulated by the current ICPN (Weber et al., 2000). This implies any syntaxon name, as defined in the ICPN (Definition 1), of any of the principal ranks (association, alliance, order, class) or auxiliary ranks (subassociation, suballiance, suborder, subclass) (Definition 2), that is both effectively published (Definition 3) and validly published (Definition 4). The authors of invalid names incorporated into valid names by the mechanisms established in the ICPN should likewise be normalized.

2. The Principle of Alphabet Uniformity. All names should be written in the Latin alphabet, and normalized accordingly. This is not an argument against the use of accents, which do not exist in Latin but which should be maintained in accordance with use in the language of origin (most importantly Finno-Ugric and Slavonic languages).

3. Principle of Univocality. Each author name should correspond univocally to one person, and vice-versa. Some authors may use a normalized form of their name in other fields, but this should not affect their name in Phytosociology, where it may have to compete with other names, and where usage may have consecrated other forms of citation. For example, Brummitt & Powell (op. cit.) propose Rivas Mart. as a normalized form for Salvador Rivas Martínez in taxonomy; however, the form Rivas-Martínez must be retained in Phytosociology, in view of its widespread use.

4. Principle of Homonymy. Homonyms are names with identical orthography (not taking into account accents or phonetic transcriptions) that must therefore be normalized to different forms so as to avoid error. Full and abbreviated forms that differ by only the full stop of the abbreviation are also considered homonyms.

Criteria.

1. Stability. Here, as with codes of nomenclature, the aim is to regulate in favour of stability and common use. It is neither possible nor desirable to fix absolute criteria, nor to apply such criteria retrospectively. Experience demonstrates that there will always be cases that were not considered when the criteria were initially fixed; furthermore, changing the name of an author will often simply lead to confusion.

2. Simplicity. A normalized name should be formed by the author's surname or its abbreviation, accompanied if necessary by his/her initial/s. Contractions should not be used. Some surnames are double, comprised of two terms, and in some countries two surnames (Spain, Portugal and other Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries) are traditionally used. This may give rise to confusion if one or other or both names are used inconsistently. There is no universal formula for normalization in such cases, but here we propose the use of the first surname, except in cases in which the author him/herself prefers the second surname or both surnames, and/or in which the use of the first surname would conflict with common use, and/or in which the use of the first surname is only insufficiently discriminant with respect to other names.

3. Grammatical particles, apocopes and other elements. In some languages, surnames often contain grammatical particles, apocopes, articles, prepositions and other such elements. The citation of such names varies very widely. Typically these elements precede the proper name, so it is reasonable that this is how they should appear in the citation. The use of upper and lower face varies widely, and the only sensible solution appears to be adherence to custom, despite the difficulties that this may cause.

4. Breakage of homonymy. In cases of homonymy of the first surname, initials must be used for disambiguation. A single initial should be sufficient if this breaks the homonymy, unless one of the authors in question has a composite name and habitually signs with both names or various initials, in which case the initials should be used. In recent years, it has become common for Spanish authors to use a hyphen between the two surnames, to break homonymy of the first surname. In these cases initials should be used, even if this means a slight name change with respect to previous publications.

In cases in which it is necessary to break homonymy, the simplest form should be used for the author more frequently cited, and the most complex form for the author less frequently cited.

5. Abbreviations and contractions. Abbreviations are much more commonly used for first names than for surnames. Most commonly, first names are reduced to the first letter, in upper face, followed by a full stop. The first surname should never be abbreviated, except if it is a hyphenated composite. When the second surname is necessary to break homonymy, it should be abbreviated if it is too long. Abbreviations should contain at least one syllable, and should terminate in a consonant. Contractions are likewise infrequent, although Braun-Blanquet has conventionally been written Br.-Bl., which must be maintained as common usage. The contraction of new names is not recommended, and is not included in the standardization presented in Annex I.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank our friends and colleages C. Aguiar, F. Alcaraz, A. Asensi, N. Boscaiu, J. Capelo, M. Collado, J.C. Costa, M.B. Crespo, M. Del Arco, B. Díez Garretas, C. Lence, D. Espirito-Santo, J.J. Lazare, J. Loidi, R. Masalles, J. Molero, R. Pott, D. Sánchez-Mata, G. Sburlino, C. Valle, F. Valle and L. Villar, for their help in the "List of authors of syntaxon names".

LIST OF AUTHORS OF SYNTAXON NAMES