Obscure Publications

[Doug Yanega]

Andreas Gminder wrote:

>In my opinion there should be a RULE by the Code (not only a
>recommandation) that at least the articles dealing with new species
>(genera, families, etc.) MUST be reviewed by at least one (or two?)
>other collegue(s). Of course this would not stop the possibility of
>publishing new species in a, let's name it "unfortunate", way. But it
>would make it a lot more uncomfortable for those wanting to avoid
>critical questions, whereas most serious publications are reviewed
>anyway, be it by someone from the editorial board of the publishing
>journal or by a collegue of own choice.

This sounds like a good way to avoid all "accidental" or frivolous new
species designations, but it strikes me that folks will object to this idea
for the same reasons they object to the idea of registering new taxon names
with a central authority in order to declare them valid. How is one to
know, upon seeing a new name, whether or not it went past peer review? Who
decides who is qualified to perform such reviews? Any insect trader trying
to inflate the value of their collection can easily find three or four
friends to sign off on an "I've got a new species!" manuscript, for
example.
        As Chris Thompson noted, the ease of desktop publishing promises to
create more problems than it will solve, and I believe if the nomenclatural
commissions don't come up with an ironclad plan SOON, then the next few
decades of taxonomy are going to see increasing chaos (maybe not much in
reality, but the potential is certainly there!). We already saw a nice
little argument here over the validity of the web "publication" of some new
Cryptocercus roach species (with both sides ending the argument claiming
they were right, remarkably), and this is just the tip of the proverbial
iceberg.
        I find it hard to imagine how any truly satisfactory solution can
be formulated that doesn't offend a lot of people, because the only true
solution is one that can deal effectively with the *worst-case* scenario
(i.e., someone attempting to name fraudulent new taxa solely so they can
profit from it), and it's pretty hard to stop that unless one comes up with
some plan which either takes into consideration the *people* involved (the
author and/or the reviewers) or the *journal* - probably through some type
of formal accreditation process. I doubt everyone would be happy either
way, though I imagine the latter solution would be MUCH more agreeable. It
might even have advantages, e.g., certain extant clauses defining the
medium or mode of publication and distribution would become superfluous; if
the commission decides that a certain web "journal" demonstrates adequate
peer-review, distribution, and archivability, for example, then there is no
debate over validity of names published therein. The main problem is that
people are likely to object to someone else deciding what is or is not a
valid place to publish.
        Let me ask: is there anyone here who believes that a rule creating
an official commission-designated list of journals and publishers valid for
publication of future new taxa would NOT, in one stroke, eliminate all
possible problems with accidental or fraudulent names?

Peace,


Doug Yanega       Dept. of Entomology           Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315
                  http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~dyanega/
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82