nomenclature

[Jacques Melot]

  Le 30/05/02, à 16:41 -0400, nous recevions de John McNeill :

>Dear Peter:
>
>David Hawksworth has published on this.  In "Need for a new
>bionomenclature" in Hawksworth, D.H. (ed.)  1997. The new
>bionomenclature: the BioCode debate.  Biology International Special
>Issue 31, he writes (p.13) "The real cost of bionomenclature
>world-wide, including the time researchers devote to the task,
>dedicated staff, committees, and meetings, has been estimated at not
>less than around US$ 22 million per year (Hawksworth 1994)"



    « Quand on veut noyer son chien, on l'accuse de la rage. »

            (proverbe français)



>The reference, to which I do not have ready access, is: Hawksworth,
>D. L. 1994 Constraints to pest characterization caused by biological
>nomenclature. In:  D. L. Hawksworth, ed., _The identification and
>characterization of pest organisms_ : 93-105. CAB International,
>Wallingford.
>
>David may be able to provide more info.
>
>John.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John McNeill, Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
>     Honorary Associate ,Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
>Mailing address:  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
>Telephone:    +44-131-248-2912;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
>Home office:  +44-162-088-0651;  fax: +44-162-088-0342
>e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.org.uk (johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Peter Stevens <peter.stevens at MOBOT.ORG> 05/30/02 13:46 PM >>>
>Does anybody know of published estimates of how much time taxonomists
>actually spend on nomenclatural matters?  I seem to remember seeing
>an estimate of time spent on such things by botanists working on the
>European flora, but I forgot to make a note of the paper (assuming I
>saw it).
>
>Peter S.
>
>This post has nothing immediatey to do with the thread " valid genus
>or nomen nudum?", although there is clearly a connection, nor with
>Steve Shattuck's post, which I append in case y'all didn't see it.
>
>At 10:46 AM +1000 5/30/02, Steve Shattuck wrote:
>>What a bleak picture.  A system so complex that the only way to make it work
>>is to actually view the exact words as published by anyone, at any time
>>since 1758, in almost any type of publication.  And if we don't go back to
>>1758 there is a very good chance someone else will and thus invalidate all
>>of our hard work.  And we seem to accept, with minimal complaint, that it
>>will cost millions and millions of dollars just to capture what's happened
>>up to now and that's just how it has to be (and always will be forever into
>>the future).  Why would you want to stick so tightly to such a system?
>>There most certainly must be a better way.  If there isn't then we're either
>>not as cleaver as we think we are or we ARE like the monks, hand-writing our
>>texts and telling Gutenberg that his "printing press-thingy" will never
>>catch on and we don't want anything to do with it, thank you very much.
>>
>>The core of the problem seems to be that individual taxonomists don't need a
>>world list of all taxa.  Most work on a relatively small group (a family or
>>set of genera) and it's fairly easy to learn these groups (that's what
>>Ph.D.'s get you).  To be a successful taxonomist you don't need to actively
>>contribute to the global picture, just your little corner of it.  And if
>>someone in another corner doesn't know about your work it doesn't really
>>matter:  the Codes say that anything published counts, no matter how obscure
>>the source.
>>
>>The solution to this problem will require at least two things: cultural
>>change and loss of freedom.  Our cultural practices will need to change
>>because we CANNOT continue to do things the way we've done them in the past
>>- it's just not working.  And we will be forced to give up some freedoms if
>>we really want to be a global commnity rather than a series of isolated
>  >individuals working in our own little vacuums.  For better or worse, the
>>Global Community is growing very rapidly and the Web has changed the way we
>>communicate and share information forever.  We have a number of choices:
>>continue the way we've been going for the past 250 years and stop
>>complaining about it or change our work practices to meet the challenges and
>>opportunities that exist today.
>>
>>We don't need to through the baby out with the bath water, but we certainly
>>need to change the bath water!