Registration of animal names

[John Noyes]

I agree entirely with Steve. If we are to try to achieve the goal set by Ed
Wilson it will be even important than now to know exactly what has been
done and where. Presently, it is an almost impossible task to keep up with
all the new taxonomic descriptions that are being published, especially in
lesser known journals, or other published media. It is one thing to know
that names have been made available in more obscure publications yet
another to attempt to obtain these publications. If we can shift the onus
from Zool. Record to authors as Steve suggests then I am all for it. This
would certainly simplify matters if new names are going to be made
available on media such as CDroms and it would certainly reduce confusion
in the future. One of the reasons that registration by Zoo. Rec. was turned
down was the possible lengthy delay between a name being published and the
time when it became officially registered, i.e. available.  This could be
reduced dramatically if the new names could be "registered" on a Zoo. Rec.
web site as soon as the publication is received by an officially appointed
registrar. I would estimate that there are around 15,000 new names being
made available in Zoology every year. It could be a daunting task to add
these all to an official list as soon as they were received. That would
work out at around 60 a day and would require at least one or two persons
full time to ensure that there was no delay in adding new names to the
list. I think it is worth a serious thought.

John

At 10:56 AM 2/13/2001 +1100, you wrote:
>>        There was a discussion of "registration" of new names using Zool.
>>Record in the context of the last revision of the ICZN.  The idea that a
>>new name would not be valid until it appeared in Zool.Record was not
>>approved, and given their lack of complete coverage of taxonomic
>>publications, it was probably a good idea not to trust them with any formal
>>"registration" function.
>
>I believe this misses the point.  Currently it is the undertaking of the
>Zoological Record to find publications containing taxonomic events.  As we
>are all well aware, this can be a daunting task for even a small taxonomic
>group, forget about all animals.  The registration proposal would require
>that authors send reprints (or something similar) to Zoo. Rec. for
>inclusion.  This shifts the responsibility from Zool. Rec. to authors and
>will (by definition) mean that Zoo. Rec. IS complete (if the name isn't
>there, it isn't valid).
>
><soap-box-on>
>
>If the taxonomic community is serious about activities such as GBIF, Species
>2000, All Taxa and the like, then we may well need to take a good long look
>at how we work and question some of our long-held and fundamental beliefs.
>To suggest that sending a reprint of latest your taxonomic paper to London
>to be included in the "Global List of Life" is too much work or places too
>much responsibility on authors or will exclude some researchers who don't
>have access to postal services is total crap.  If we want truly global
>taxonomic initiatives to succeed then everyone must contribute.  I would
>have thought that sticking a reprint in an envelope and sending it to London
>(or wherever) would have paid huge dividends well beyond the minimal costs.
>
><soap-box-off>
>
>Steve Shattuck
>CSIRO Entomology
>biolink at ento.csiro.au
>
>

John S. Noyes, Entomology Department, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, South Kensington, London, SW7 5BD, UK

Tel. +44 (0)207-942-5594  Fax: +44 (0)207-942-5229

INTERNET: jsn at NHM.ac.uk

Interactive catalogue and biological database of World Chalcidoidea:

http://www.springer-ny.com/detail.tpl?cart=97108527710714749&ISBN=354014675X
or search for Noyes at:
http://www.springer-ny.com/

Encyrtidae of Costa Rica:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/science/intro/entom/project2/index.html

Course on taxonomy and biology of parasitic Hymenoptera:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hymcours