NATURE to save taxonomy! - further thoughts

[Richard Pyle]

I said:

> Wouldn't it be a LOT cleaner, easier, better,
> more reliable for Nature to have stepped up to the plate themselves and
> announced that *they* would send a REprint of all descriptions to some
> repository?

On further reflection, it would seem safe to assume that the Linnaean
Society probably already has a subscription to NATURE, and therefore would
have little difficulty cataloging the (couple of dozen or so?) taxonomic
descriptions that appear in this journal each year. Is this an unreasonable
assumption?  Given how much more meaningful the *published* descriptions
are, compared to the "preprint" version, I'm at an even further loss as to
what, exactly, the purpose of their planned new policy really is. I'm not
sure what the policy really accomplishes, other than add yet one more
barrier to taxonomists hoping to catalog  global biodiversity (i.e., one
more step in the process of describing species).  Maybe they (at NATURE) are
just trying to "shake things up" a bit?  If so, it seems they have succeeded
somewhat -- at least on this list.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html
"The opinions expressed are those of the sender, and not necessarily those
of Bishop Museum."