[Taxacom] Open review as a wiki

Fri Apr 4 02:14:56 CDT 2008

I have always (i.e. for 60 years) understood the citation of author and date to be just that: the author's name and the year of publication - a guide to the publication, but by no means a formal citation. In the fields where I have worked, perhaps I've been lucky; but when I want the original reference, I then go to a catalogue (or, at worst, the Zoo. Rec.)

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Div of Entomology
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun

-----Original Message-----
From:	taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Richard Pyle
Sent:	Fri 04-Apr-08 5:28 AM
To:	'Mary Barkworth'; 'Donat Agosti'; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Cc:	
Subject:	Re: [Taxacom] Open review as a wiki

Hi Mary,

We obviously disagree on this issue.

First of all, why *not* read the original article?  At least once in a
taxonomic (or even ecological) career, for crying out loud!  Second, it's
called "Literature *Cited*".  When I write "Aus bus Jones, 1850", the
"Jones, 1850" *is* a citation, and it *is* literature, so it *should* be in
the "Literature Cited" section. Why don't we consider it fraudulent to *not*
include the full citation in the Lit Cit?

Scientific names are labels to taxonomic *concepts*.  Scientific concepts.
When we make reference to other scientific concepts, we cite the literature
that defined the concept.  Why isn't the same true for taxonomic concepts?
In fact, for most names we should consistently cite *two* published works:
the original work in which the concept was first proposed, and the work that
defines the particular definition of the concept we are following.  If we
held ourselves to the same standard as other sciences, we would make
reference to "Aus bus Jones, 1850 SEC Smith, 1975", or "Xus bus (Jones,
1850) Smith, 1975". Botanists are closer to doing this than zoologists,
because they at least cite the combination authorship.  But unlike
zoologists, they don't include the year.  In fact, botanists should probably
be citing three taxonomic works: "Xus bus (Jones, 1850) Smith, 1975 SEC
Brown 2004".

I *fully* agree with you on the voucher issue (Jim Croft made the same
comment to me off line).  But when I see taxonomists whining Rodney
Dangefield-like that they don't get no respect, at least *taxonomists* can
be citing the source for the original concept and specific iteration of the
concept being referenced.  No wonder our field is so often taken for
granted!

Your last paragraph underscores an inherently relevant point to all of this:
Access to the original description is getting easier and easier.  Not just
because of TROPICOS and IPNI, but also because of Catalog of Fishes,
AntBase/Hymenoptera Name Server, BDWD, Hexacoralia databse, and dozens of
others.  Pretty-mich all of which began as personal projects for individual
needs.

In a world where the original description and subsequent concept definitions
are just a mouse-click away (a world we are getting closer and closer to,
thanks to efforts like BHL, Plazi and forward-thinking journals like
Zootaxa, among others), it should not be seen as such a tremendous burdon to
an ecologist at least make sure they are dealing with the right species.
And yes, they should be getting vouchers too!

I don't think what I suggest is in any way unreasonable -- it only brings
taxonomy up to the same level as other fields of biology (or other
sciences).

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Barkworth [mailto:Mary at biology.usu.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:27 AM
> To: Richard Pyle; Donat Agosti; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Open review as a wiki
> 
> 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