Re: [BIBLIO] [Refdb-users] Re: The case against <middlename>

[Bruce D'A. <bd...@fa...>]

On Dec 10, 2003, at 5:31 PM, Markus Hoenicka wrote:

> I am not trying to convince you that middle names are a good thing per
> se or that the Chicago Manual should adopt them. They are used in the
> bibliography styles of journals in the life sciences, and all of these
> journals do have pretty strict rules that do or don't comply with the
> Chicago Manual.

But do they actually explicitly say anything about "middle names"?  If=20=

I go to the author info page for the J. of Biological Chemistry, I see=20=

this:

> References
>
> =B7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 cited in text by number rather than author =
and date
>
> =B7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 numbered consecutively in the order of =
appearance in the=20
> manuscript
>
> =B7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 References for journals and books should be =
in the following=20
> styles:
>
> 1. MacDonald, G. M., Steenhuis, J. J., and Barry, B. A. (1995) J.=20
> Biol. Chem. 270, 8420-8428
>
> 2. Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F., and Maniatis, T. (1989) Molecular=20
> Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2nd Ed., Cold Spring HarborLaboratory,=20=

> Cold Spring Harbor, NY

All this tells me is that given names -- all of them -- ought to be=20
initialized, with a period, and separated by a space.  There is no=20
distinction between first and middle.

Bruce