Systematics...an environmental perspective

[Peter Rauch]

> Date:         Sun, 17 Mar 1996 12:38:31 -0800
> From: Joost Romeu <joost at SIRIUS.COM>
>
> ... a situation in which taxonomists
> are bickering over whether they want to use paper or pixel.

I think there are two discussion going on, intertwined but not
particularly related. One is the "paper/pixel" discussion. I'm on the
pixel side, in case anyone is confused or in doubt about that. The
other discussion is over the "hows" and "whats" of pixelizing (not the
"why").

> ... missing such a  golden opportunity by arguing minutia.

I don't think the hows and whats are considering minutia. We disagree.

> - I'm of the opinion, that merely exposing people to the fascinating
> diversity our natural world has to offer - no matter how technical and
> 'taxonocentric' that exposure may be, will invariably foster an
> appreciation for the environment and, by so doing, excite the public, the
> press, and the politician.

I wish I could believe that, but I think there has been an enormous
amount of high quality "exposing" and "fostering" going on over the
past twenty years on TV and in the magazine press, detailing every
imaginable and many heretofore unimagined aspects of our fascinating
diversity, in full color, full motion, slow motion, time lapse motion;
outside the body, inside the body, inside the cellr; above the ground,
on the ground, below ground, bottom of the sea, etc.  So, why are we
with a Congress that didn't get it? I don't think e-publishing by
systematists will make a big dent in the publics appreciation score.

> But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe what I call "minutiae" are extremely important.
> To that issue, may I pose the following questions:
>
> Given:

   ...an extensive list of examples that "shit happens"...

> Why is it ABSOLUTELY necessary to insure that:
> - nothing we say will be contradicted?

We didn't

> - nothing we say will be lost ?

We didn't

> - nothing we say will be repeated ?

We didn't

> - nothing we say will be stolen or changed - i.e. bent spindled and mutilated?

We didn't

Exactly because "it" happens, we'd like to think things can be improved.
Unless, of course, we believe that all of the above things are OK, and
don't need to be tended to??? If none of the above issues are important,
then systematists are home free. Smile, be happy. If any one of them is
important, then let's make sure that the e-pub system can cope with it
well. More important than the above general issues, is whether the
various Codes of Nomenclature contain rules/constraints that will
lead to difficulties with e-pubs. I personally think that this is
the only area which must be dealt with exclusively by systematists.
Most of the remaining issues of e-publishing are being addresses by
the rest of the world, and will improve and be resolved with little
input or resourced from the systematics community.

> The Internet and electronic data entry and manipulation offer the
> opportunity not only to do things the way they've always been done - only
> faster and farther

I know you don't mean more and faster loses, repetition, inadvertent
change, intellectual theft, ....

> I look forward to the day when taxonomists/systematists will spend more
> time talking about how to use contemporary technology to improve and
> change,

I think that is what one entire thread of this dual discussion is about
--"How" to use contemporary technology to do it, "it" being what
systematists want to do, which is .... (create/disseminate/access
(more) information, and provide for a (more) stable and useful system
of nomenclature)?
Peter