cultural change (Re: Spelling detection and correction in Taxonomic Databases)

[Doug Yanega]

Steve Shattuck wrote:

>The core of the problem seems to be that individual taxonomists don't need a
>world list of all taxa.

I probably don't need to point this out, but the reason this is a
problem is that folks like us museum managers typically *DO* need
world lists, since few collections are totally geographically
restricted. Those of us working with arthropods have an especially
difficult time of it. I received an insect specimen from Nicaragua
yesterday, IDed in 1962. There are no web pages or print catalogs
dealing with this group. How do I check to see if the name is still
valid? It's not easy to find out, but it *should* be.

>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 community rather than a series of isolated
>individuals working in our own little vacuums.

I'm presuming (since you weren't explicit) that the cultural change
you had in mind is electronic publication. I think this one is likely
to be accommodated within the next decade (if only because
taxonomists are going broke and can't afford page charges any more).
I'm presuming that the freedom issue you're referring to is
registration, and that's going to be a harder sell, though I'm one
who believes it's absolutely necessary. To a taxonomist it may seem
like an imposition, certainly, but to those of us who are forced to
make use of classification, we desperately NEED to have unique
identifying codes to refer to each named taxon - and having a
standardized hierarchy would help, too. Just imagine trying to
organize a library without having the Dewey Decimal System, ISBN
numbers, or something like it. Well, that's what we have to deal with
in *our* museums, and that's just not right.

I'm even more of an extremist than that, as well, in that (as I've
said here before) I feel that we need to take specific action
regarding the point you make above: "the Codes say that anything
published counts, no matter how obscure the source" - the total lack
of provisions for peer review and accountability. I've already
encountered, in my own institution, people talking about selling new
taxon names at $1000 each to raise money (mercifully the idea was
killed). Sure, it might seem harmless, but if the precedent is set
and draws too much public attention, people outside the taxonomic
community will discover that there's nothing to prevent anyone from
*intentionally* creating and self-publishing new names for taxa that
already have them. I believe that someone somewhere WILL make this
logical leap (that creating bogus names is an easy way to get rich
quick - all it really requires is some specimens, a little knowledge
of the Code, and the ability to press CDs), and we'll all suffer when
that happens. It's bad enough when people do it out of vanity or
incompetence, but imagine how much worse it'd be if people stood to
make real money by doing so. I still expect some joker to start
auctioning off "new" names on eBay any day now - there are millions
of suckers who would fall for it in a second, since they'd know
absolutely nothing about what synonymy means (besides which, even a
synonym effectively immortalizes you). To that end, let's combine all
the preceding ideas into one:

Let's imagine a website - maybe even the Tree of Life website or
something similar, so everything is organized taxonomically - where
every new taxon description or revision MUST be submitted and placed
out for public review and commentary. This is how the patent office
works, in essence, and even the principle of "patent pending" could
apply here as well: i.e., the right to name a taxon is formally
reserved by the earliest applicant - this would preclude complaints
that a delay in publication of a name might result in getting
"scooped." Every so often, works that earn final approval would be
published formally (simultaneously in hardcopy or CD as well as
online in PDF format, as desired) and any new taxa proposed would
receive a permanent, unique identifying code at that time. The
criteria for final approval would involve a combination of satisfying
all pertinent ICxN provisions as to priority, diagnosis, type
designation, etc., AND the passing of rigorous peer review by virtue
of a mandatory public commentary period (making it public minimizes
the effects of both the "nemesis" factor and, conversely, cronyism).
To those who don't like this idea, consider this (following the "qui
bono" comment): WHO WOULD IT HURT? Should we weep for the vain and
incompetent? To those who claim it would make their publications miss
their specialist audience - an audience that would normally be
reached by specialist journals - I believe it would have the OPPOSITE
effect, since every specialist in the world would know that they only
had to visit that *one* website to find every single work regarding
their taxa of interest. The only bad thing that might happen is the
specialist journals might suffer, but even this would have its
positive aspects.

Done correctly, with a conscientious and objective editorial board,
and a reliable source of funding (obviously), this approach would
retain all the best aspects of the present system, and eliminate only
those restrictions and loopholes which do (or could) represent
genuine impediments to progress. I recognize that there would be one
inherent limitation introduced this way, but it's essentially a
trade-off for an *old* limitation: by having peer review accomplished
by public commentary via the web, it would potentially exclude people
with no computer access from the review process (though colleagues
could certainly pass them printouts of the web pages to examine, and
manuscripts could still be *submitted* the old-fashioned way, and
scanned into PDF form for viewing). I'd argue that this would STILL
be far better than the present system of peer review, where at most
four people in the entire world (and sometimes zero) get to make
comments before something is in print.

I don't expect much support for my views, but - if there *are* people
who agree - then why, exactly, are we still talking about it and not
working to make something like this come to pass?
--

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
            http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82