Key to 10 species requirement

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

I like Gregor Hagedorn's proposal yesterday. His principles
make sense as a general guideline on how to publish a
new species. My objections a few days ago were to making this
sort of thing mandatory rather than recommended.
   A few points:

1) A philosophical question: do recommendations belong
in the ICBN at all? The whole idea of a "Code" is that if
represent a quasi-legal set of mandates that everyone is
required to follow. You could fill it with thousands of
recommendations, but would this add anything to the science?
Think of an analogy with civil law. If the parliament
passes a law saying "It is strongly recommended that people
stop at stop signs" but does not make it mandatory, enforceable
by law, it means nothing. Putting it into the legal code
is a waste of ink.

2) The statement "simply picking just 10
random species would obviously make a fool of her- or himself. Most
people try to avoid that..."   The problem is that some
people really are fools. I have run into more than one
incompetent person in science, such as a boss I had a few
years ago who deliberately misspelled scientific names in
his database. There are also people who are intelligent
but inexperienced in the subtle nuances of the ICBN:
grad students, people from poorer countries lacking proper
education, etc.

3) In any legal or quasi-legal code, one must be
absolutely clear in what one means. If you use a term
such as "key" you need to define it. This is both so
that the person writing a key knows what is expected,
and so that the reader can be absolutely certain whether
or not the writer has met the requirements.

4) I love your sign-off line "Often wrong but never in doubt!"
Do you mind if I use that?

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
who believes very strongly that one should
not have opinions.