Aaron Baldwin asks why the author of a species can be given as "Gould" in
one context and as "A. A. Gould" in another. There aren't any rules, except
those imposed by individual journals, editors, or authors, so names can be
given in several different forms. Usually, an author will maintain a
consistent format throughout any one publication, but different journals
have different rules, so the style may differ from article to article.
 
The Zoological Code does not consider the author and date to be part of the
name of a genus or species, but citing the author and date is encouraged.
Often, the author and date are included just once, e.g., when a species is
first mentioned, or in a table, or in the systematic descriptions. This
saves space and is easier to read.
 
In recent publications, the trend is to give the surname without
abbreviation (e.g., "Linnaeus"). The initials are added only in cases where
confusion could result otherwise. For example, "U. P. James" and "J. F.
James"--respectively uncle and nephew paleontologists, Uriah and James, in
Cincinnati during the late 1800's; it's easy to confuse the two because
they both wrote about fossils of the same age and location--sometimes the
same specimens--and are therefore often cited in the same paper. (If only
one James is cited in an article, the author may or may not choose to add
initials.) The Sowerby family is even more complex; another was the Adams
family. Centuries of experience show that this style is the best way of
imparting authors' names clearly and succinctly. The full citation, with
authors' initials, should be included in the references, but often isn't.
 
Older publications show a broad range of styles. It was once common to
abbreviate surnames of biologists who named many species. Linnaeus had the
prime distinction: the only biologist to have a one-letter abbreviation, L.
("Linn." was also used sometimes). So <picking up a copy of a work
published in 1857> we see such abbreviations as Con., Lons., Val., Agass.,
d'Orb., and Lam. Since another author might choose to abbreviate Agassiz as
Ag. instead of Agass., eventually lists of standardized abbreviations were
drawn up, and if we ask very sweetly, someone on Conch-L might locate such
a list for us. (Please?)
 
Using abbreviations saved space, especially on dinky museum labels, and
took less time to write in an age of quill pens. But they often cause more
grief than they are worth, so they are no longer used as much.
 
Incidentally, museums also have standardized abbreviations that are very
much alive: They are used to catalog and label the specimens themselves,
e.g., GSA 1026-23, specimen 23 from locality 1026 of the Geological Survey
of Alabama Paleontological Collection. But that's another tale to tell.
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama