[Taxacom] Open review as a wiki

[Richard Jensen]

I wonder how many researchers who cite Mullis' originl paper on PCR have 
really read the paper? How many of those who cite Sneath and Sokal 
(1973) have read that book? Has everyone who cites Stebbins (1950), Mayr 
(1963) or Hennig (1950) actually taken the time to read those books? I'm 
willing to bet that the answer is no. Many citations are simply lifted 
from the literature and never checked. That's how some mistaken 
interpretations have been perpetuated for years.

Unfortunately, while citing the original description for each taxon 
mentioned in a paper is doable, and would lead to great emphasis on 
making sure we have the right names, in many cases it will lead to 
immense literature citations. For example, if I conduct a biodiversity 
survey, say the vascular plants of St. Joseph County, Indiana, I may 
have to cite several thousand papers just for the taxon names. That's 
why, when reporting such work, we often indicate that, nomenclature, 
except as noted otherwise, follows Deam (1940). or some other existing 
source that "covers" the area in question.

So, one one level I agree with Mary. But, on another level, the sheer 
magnitude of such a literature citation would be impressive and would 
acknowledge the great investment of time and energy on the part of our 
predecessors and colleagues.

Dick J

Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary’s College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674



Mary Barkworth wrote:
> Include full citations in the bibliography? I wish that I thought you
> were joking. How many times have we cited the authors of a name in a
> paper because that is editorial policy without ever reading the original
> article, let alone examining the type? At least now we do not include
> the article in the literature cited. Doing so without at least reading
> the article could be considered fraudulent. Please, let's keep
> literature cited for items that we have actually read. Scientific names
> are supposed to be meaningful. Yes, their interpretation can change -
> but that is not necessarily resolved by citing the place where they were
> originally published; it may require citation of a more recent work
> (identified using .., as interpreted by ..). There are a lot of things
> that I would like ecologists and others to do (deposit vouchers being
> number one) before I would ask them to give complete citations for
> articles that they have not read particularly when their reading of the
> article would add nothing to their research, just to the length of the
> paper.  I would agree with those that argue that unless we are
> discussing alternative interpretations of a name, adding the authors
> usually does nothing but increase the amount of paper or number of
> electrons used by a publication. 
>  
> I write as a botanist. We are blessed with TROPICOS, IPNI, and ING for
> information on who published what, where. Although not complete, these
> are phenomenal resources that are getting better and better (more
> rapidly than ITIS). TROPICOS is even linking names to images of the
> original publication and types. Again, this is not something happening
> overnight, but it is happening. It began not because of some huge
> international initiative but because it helped the Missouri Botanical
> Garden in curating their collection. Perhaps a path to follow? 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>