[Taxacom] Article 16.2 of the ICZN

[Paul Hargraves]

....and then you have recalcitrance. Friedrich Hustedt, probably the 
foremost diatomist of the first half of the 20th century, had this to 
say in one of his very few publications in English: "These rules are 
made by botanists to bring order into our natural system and to 
facilitate taxonomy, not to make it absurd.  Therefore in my opinion we 
must leave the rules in all cases where it seems to be undoubtedly 
necessary." He had described 89 new species and four new varieties in 
two small mud samples from the harbor of Beaufort, North Carolina.
PEH


Paul E. Hargraves
Emeritus Professor of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island
and
Affiliate Research Professor, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, 
Florida Atlantic University
and
Research Associate, Smithsonian Marine Station, Ft. Pierce, FL.

mivie at montana.edu wrote:
> At least in entomology, most journals are on record as having code
> compliance as a requirement, but that requires that someone who knows the
> code well enough reviews the paper well enough, to actually check every
> little thing.  Lets face it, it is the job of the AUTHORS to be code
> compliant.  I am as frustrated as anyone with the issue, as I think I
> spend half of my time dealing with people who did not do their job on
> nomenclature, and yet they got it through review. This includes
> well-respected systematists who just blew it.  But, to blame anyone but
> the author is misplaced.
>
> And yes, the Code is voluntary, and will only be followed if it is not too
> onerous.  What is onerous to me is not the same as it is for someone else.
>  So, we have flex.  The commissioners need to keep this in mind when they
> have the urge to increase legalism.
>
> Lastly, some journals simply refuse to be code compliant.  I know of
> people who had the descriptive parts (Code compliance) stripped from
> Science and Nature, and forced to be reduced to an absolute minimum in the
> Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B.  Yet, the journal
> wanted them to use the (invalid) scientific name.  The editors of those
> prestigious journals feel their space is too precious for such trivia. 
> Yet, there is great pressure to publish there if you can.
>
> Mike Ivie
>
>   
>> No code regulates the behavior fo editors or reviewers.  That's a given.
>> But, journals could adopt a policy that no manuscript will be published
>> until matters involving the code have been dealt with and have passed
>> muster by at least one reviewer familiar with the code.  Some journals
>> have nomenclature editors to ensure that nomenclatural matters are
>> properly dealt with.  Why wouldn't such a system work?  Is it that
>> editors/reviewers can't be, or don't want to be, bothered with such
>> minutiae?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dick J
>>
>> Richard Jensen, Professor
>> Department of Biology
>> Saint Mary's College
>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>>
>> tel: 574-284-4674
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
>> To: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>, Dick Jensen
>>
>> ... and no Code which regulates the BEHAVIOUR of taxonomists! To quote one
>> (anonymous) coleopterist: "I don't care if someone comes along in the
>> future and redesignates my types ..."
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>