Fwd: Latin publication and amateurs

[Jacqueline Soule]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_921082493_boundary
Content-ID: <0_921082493 at inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII



--part0_921082493_boundary
Content-ID: <0_921082493 at inet_out.mail.hotmail.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <fmoretzsohn at hotmail.com>
Received: from  rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99]) by
        air-za03.mail.aol.com (v56.26) with SMTP; Sun, 07 Mar 1999 21:02:30
        -0500
Received: from hotmail.com (wya-lfd108.hotmail.com [207.82.252.172])
          by rly-za03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
          with SMTP id VAA24405 for <Soulej at AOL.COM>;
          Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:02:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 16323 invoked by uid 0); 8 Mar 1999 02:02:28 -0000
Message-ID: <19990308020228.16322.qmail at hotmail.com>
Received: from 128.171.120.212 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
        Sun, 07 Mar 1999 18:02:27 PST
X-Originating-IP: [128.171.120.212]
From: "Fabio Moretzsohn" <fmoretzsohn at hotmail.com>
To: Soulej at AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Latin publication and amateurs
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 18:02:27 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit


Dear Taxacomers

I would like to add to what Jacqueline Soule just said. In addition to
birds and fishes, at least other groups of animals are also popular
among amateurs, such as shells (particularly the families Cypraeidae and
Conidae) and butterflies. This is due to the popularity of shell (and
butterfly) collection, and perhaps the same occurs also in groups in
pet/aquarium trade. There are many popular publications that are not
peer-reviewed, which often publish articles describing new taxa, usually
new species that should not have any scientific meaning. To worsen it,
zoological descriptions do not need a Latin description, and therefore
many (most?) of these new names may become invalid names. This adds a
lot of "noise" and complicates the systematic literature. As pointed out
by J. Soule, where do we draw the line?

I study the family Cypraeidae (cowries), and I am familiar with many
amateur-oriented, quasi-scientific journals in Malacology. Several of
them are published in full color, and sometimes carry papers by
professional taxonomists. Many of the articles are carefully prepared,
and could be published in peer-reviewed journals. However most of them
do not meet a standard that we would like to see in a scientific
journal. It's okay when they talk about new observations or occurrences,
or a shell show somewhere. But it's not okay when they describe or
review taxa with an incomplete review of the literature or proper
knowledge required in taxonomy.

Please note that I am NOT proposing to resurrect Latin descriptions in
zoological descriptions (though I see its good points on the botanical
side), nor am I against amateurs. We all know that they are valuable to
professional taxonomists, and many amateurs out there have become
acquainted enough with the game's rules to produce good quality
taxonomic work. What I am concerned about is the multiplication of
invalid names in some taxonomic groups. With the current trend of
vanishing taxonomists in universities and museums, who will review all
this mess?

I am sure this topic has been discussed before in this forum, but I just
wanted to add my two "centavos" here.

Aloha,  Fabio

----------------------------------------
Fabio Moretzsohn
Department of Zoology
University of Hawaii
2538 The Mall
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
fmoretzsohn at hotmail.com


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

--part0_921082493_boundary--