[Fwd: Re: Nomenclator Zoologicus => A Tool, not the fin al solution]

[Paul Kirk]

Even with a perfect copy of NZ universally and freely available people will
still make mistakes - it's what we do ;-)

In the world of Mycology the Index Fungorum nomenclator has been available
for almost a decade, everyone and his dog knows about it, Google has indexed
it, but people still make mistakes, introduce new homonyms, make new
combinations which are not required, create superfluous names ...

A system of registration, with a benign pre-registration review, supported
by the community, is the only system which might stand a chance of resolving
these problems. At least with everything out in the open nobody can claim
not to know what has already been done.

Paul M. Kirk
CABI Bioscience
www.indexfungorum.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Spies
To: TAXACOM at listserv.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: 03/01/05 16:25
Subject: [TAXACOM] [Fwd: Re: Nomenclator Zoologicus => A Tool, not the final
solution]

christian thompson wrote:

> Yes, Martin & Wolfgang are correct in pointing out problems with
NEAVE.
> However, they are missing the point of what uBio has done.
I don't think so. Nobody is saying that what they are trying to do is
not worthwhile. I just wonder whether - at this point in time, see
below - publication of current NEAVE data will do more good than harm.
(By the way: as you know, Chris, I have voiced similar concerns about
comparable publications before.)

> NEAVE is a tool for specialists.
Unfortunately, as I understand it the current dataset - unchecked by
experts as it is - will not be available to specialists only, see below.

> What uBio has provided ... is now ... universally available
There you have it.

> So, the FIRST step is to congratulate uBio for making a very useful
> tool ...
Wolfgang Lorenz's message did so. And I would hardly have offered them
my help if I thought their entire project was misguided.

> Unfortunately, there are the Embrik Strands come out of the woodwork
> again. Embrik Strand became famous when Neave first came out as one
who
> quickly re-named hundreds of supposed junior homonyms. Already there
are
> non-specialists starting to do the same again.
That's my point exactly, Chris. In the interim period, while NEAVE is
publicly accessible but not QCd for content, will more problems be
solved or created using NEAVE?

I ask this question because I'm having to engage in clean-up of
nomenclature errors practically every day - out of necessity rather
than free choice. Consequently, I can recognize the potetnial for new
avalanches of further errors, and wwould like to see everyone involved
in affairs like NZ online give the above question very serious
consideration.

Prominent (!) warnings signalling preliminary data that must not be
taken for gospel seem the bare minimum one can ask for (and Wolfgang
Lorenz and I haven't asked for anything more).

Best regards,

--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany