# Some Taxonomic Scenarios...
> Trying to explain a couple of taxonomic scenarios relevant for the taxonomic label (On Puneet's world, the sec.' thing);

Let's say, the authors of a zoological paper on the genus Sphaerocysta (because the botanical code is more complicated) which contains four treatments are: Puneet Kishor, Donat Agosti, Terry Catapano. Year of publication 2020.

* The **_first treatment_** is a new species authored by all authors.

* The **_second treatment_** is a redescription.

* The **_third treatment_** is another new species authored by Puneet only.

* The **_fourth treatment_** is a genus, authored by Puneet and Donat.

**So, how would this mess would be indicated in the taxonomic paper?**

1. _Sphaerocysta newspecies01_

2. _Sphaerocysta globifera_ Stal, 1873

3. _Sphaerocysta newspecies02_ Punnet or _Sphaerocysta newspecies02_ Punnet, 2020

4. _Newgenus_ Puneet & Donat or _Newgenus_ Puneet & Donat, 2020

>As you can see, I think the year is optional when you're indicating authorship from the authors of the paper itself, and when you don't indicate authorship in a new description, it's assumed that all authors of the paper are included as author of that taxon.

**And how the taxonomic label look like in these four different cases?**

1. _Sphaerocysta newspecies01_ Puneet, Agosti & Catapano, 2020

2. _Sphaerocysta globifera_ Stal, 1873 sec. Puneet, Agosti & Catapano, 2020

3. _Sphaerocysta newspecies02_ Punnet, 2020

4. _Newgenus_ Puneet & Donat, 2020

**From this, we can say that:**

* Sometimes, not all authors of the paper will be included as the author of a treatment, but the authors of a treatment will always be included in the authors of the paper.

## Looking at actual lists of treatment citations in a paper...

### Case 1 - From Guidoti, 2013

**_Gargaphia inca_ Monte, 1943 sp. reval.**
(Figs 2, 3, 5, 7)
> [name=mguidoti] More on the status '_sp. reval._' later on this file.

_Gargaphia inca_ Monte, 1943:105, fg. 1; 1947:232, fgs 1, 3.
_Gargaphia opima_ Drake & Hambleton, 1945:365; Drake &
Ruhoff, 1965:229.

>So, what's going on here?
>The actual treatment label would be:
>**_Gargaphia inca_ Monte, 1943 sec. Guidoti, 2013**
>
>**It cites:**
>
> _Gargaphia inca_ Monte, 1943
> _Gargaphia inca_ Monte, 1943 sec. Monte, 1947
> _Gargaphia opima_ Drake & Hambleton, 1945
> _Gargaphia opima_ Drake & Hambleton, 1945 sec. Drake & Ruhoff, 1965
>
> Total treatments citations in this situation: 4;
> Total treatments with status = new species: 2;
> Total treatments citations with other status: 0, but the actual treatment is a revalidation (sp. reval.). In both cases (_sp. n._ and _sp. reval._), this would have been listed into the 'status' tag/attribute.

### Case 2 - From Froeschner, 1995.

**_Acanthocheila armigera_ (Stal)**

_Monanthia (Acanthocheila) armigera_ Stal, 1858: 61.
_Monanthia (Acanthocephala) spinuligera_ Stal, 1858: 61. Synonymized by Monte, 1938: 128.
_Acanthochila (sic) armigera_ Stal, 1873: 127.
_Acanthocheila nigrescens_ Drake and Bondar, 1932: 88.

>So, what's going on here?
>The actual treatment label would be:
>**_Acanthocheila armigera_ (Stal, 1858) sec. Foreschner, 1995**
>
>**It cites:**
>
> _Monanthia (Acanthocheila) armigera_ Stal, 1858
> _Monanthia (Acanthocephala) spinuligera_ Stal, 1858
> _Acanthochila (sic) armigera_ (Stal, 1858) sec. Stal, 1873
> _Acanthocheila nigrescens_ Drake and Bondar, 1932
> _Acanthocheila armigera_ (Stal, 1858) sec. Monte, 1938 (it synonimyzed Monanthia (Acanthocephala) spinuligera Stal, 1858 with something, but we can't tell from this list only)
>
> Total treatments citations in this treatment: 5;
> Total treatments citations with status = new species: 3;
> Total treatments citations with other status: 1, poorly indicated in the treatment citation list, as you can see.
>
>**Two things here:**
> You see how the paper author didn't use the species authority year on the treatment title?
> And, you see Monte's treatment, how it was displayed?

## Question(s)

**1. Should we include the status (_sp. n._, _sp. reval._) in the taxonomic label?**
For _sp. n._, it might not be needed. Because if there is no '_sec._' part, it indicates that the treatment is the first description of that given taxon concept. However, what about _sp. reval._, or other status that might or might not be used (remember, taxonomists don't always follow the code as they should)? This information is missed if not in the taxonomic label. A revalidation is an important taxonomic event. It carries history of the concept. What do you think?

**2. On taxonomic titles and labels, should we include the mispellings, like the example with the '(sic)' included in case #2?**

**3. When I look at the two highlighted points on case #2, I can't help but ask myself if Guido is being able to get the data on these complicated examples?**

**4. How the author of the species of a treatment citation, and the year, are being stored, and how the author and year of the treatment citation are being stored?**
So, I'm not sure if the authority of the species of the treatment citation is being harvested by GGI.

I'm also not sure if the treatment citation author (not the author of the species of that given treatment citation) is being stored.

The treatment citation authority year is the same as the publication year.

**5. When the author of the treatment (not a treatment citation, the actual treatment) is a subset of all authors of the paper that contains that treatment citation, is this being caught by GGI?**
I'm also not sure about this. And, I can't see how we can build a reliable logic to find this informaton because:

a. The author of the treatment can be the same author of the species (I can redescribe my own species in a different paper)
b. People can have the exact same name, thus, we can't rely on comparing whatever author is saved to a given treatment citation with the paper's authors in an attempt to find out which author (if the species or treatment) GGI is saving for treatment citations.