[Taxacom] Article 16.2 of the ICZN

[Bob Mesibov]

Mike Ivie's right in that authors, not reviewers or editors, carry most of the responsibility for making sure that taxonomic papers are Code-compliant. It would be really good, though, if editors and reviewers were as careful as Dick Jensen would like them to be.

I also agree that we have 'flex' in nomenclature. I can think of many instances (in millipede-ology) where the Code wasn't strictly applied, yet taxonomists accept the taxonomic results as if the Code had been followed to the letter. There are also instances where the Code was dutifully adhered to, but the result is junk that taxonomists ignore (some examples a few months back on Taxacom of 'rogue' taxonomy).

Between the two are many cases which really need a good sorting-out and tidying-up. This often happens when a taxon specialist compiles a big catalogue or checklist. You can almost hear the authority clucking 'Tsk tsk...' between the lines as type species and genera are formally assigned, names emended, lectotypes selected, priorities clarified and correct authorities identified.

This is the hard, patient, manual work that (as Stephen Thorpe points out) is not going to be done by machine. Isn't there a trade-off, then? The more legalism and mandatory requirements, the less the need for taxon specialists in future. The more 'flex', the greater the need for taxonomic training to produce the specialists. If I had my druthers, I'd go for option 2, but I don't see much taxonomic training in the tertiary-level course handbooks these days. Lotta bioinformatics, though...
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html