Talk:HISPID 5 for HISPID Users/NameFormula

If you use this element, what will go in abcd://Unit/Identifications/Identification/Result/TaxonIdentified/ScientificName/FullScientificNameString? I imagine that would be the same, so this element seems superfluous.

I have proposed before to have within this element two ABCD ScientificName Type elements (HybridParent1 and HybridParent2) plus an equivalent of the HISPID |Hybrid Flag element. I think there might still be value in that, but we don't store hybrid information in a form anymore that it is of value to us (or is easy to transfer). Does anyone else still have the (equivalents of) the Second Hybrid Genus Name, Second Hybrid Species Epithet, Second Hybrid Infraspecific Rank and Second Hybrid Infraspecific Epithet fields in their database? (That would have been a way better solution than what we had, so I am not judging).

I think the enduring value here is the format of the hybrid formula. If we deliver our hybrid formulae in a consistent format (the one suggested), they are both easily transferred and easily parsed at the other end. This has to happen in the FullScientificName field though. The item fails to mention that the parents should be entered in alphabetical order – which is a recommendation in the Code – but both examples do so. –NielsKlazenga 17:10, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Interestingly, in both HISPID 3 and HISPID 4 there is a concept for Second Infraspecific Author, but not for Second Hybrid Species Author. (Not that I am endorsing in any way, shape or form having two (or three) author fields for the one name.) –NielsKlazenga 17:45, 6 November 2012 (EST)