[Taxacom] new nomina nuda (was Re: e-only taxonomic publication)

[Stephen Thorpe]

I agree fully with Geoff inasmuch as this mess was an editorial problem, and the authors did a very good job indeed of doing the taxonomy, though the rug got swiped from under them by the editors. I'm not quite sure that agree that it is only a very minor problem, but, at any rate, it is easily solved if the ICZN will make a ruling that these names are to be treated as available. ICZN rulings are the only way out of these problems. I do find it disturbing, though, that the taxonomic part of this article was relegated to an electronic supplement - sets a bad precedent that leads inevitably to some people saying things like "well, why bother to name the taxa at all?" They might say that all that matters is that there was a "clade of extinct, siphon-bearing, fluid-feeding insects, early members of the order Mecoptera (scorpionflies), were likely feeding on gymnospermous ovulate secretions during the late Middle Jurassic to mid–Early Cretaceous", but we don't need to name it! This leads to phylogenetic analyses with undescribed taxa as terminals, ... somebody shoot me now!

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read [gread at actrix.gen.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2010 7:31 p.m.
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] new nomina nuda (was Re: e-only taxonomic publication)

>>> On 11/02/2010 at 2:36 p.m., "Stephen Gaimari" <SGaimari at cdfa.ca.gov>
wrote:
> The authors may or may not care whether their work is code compliant.

I'll bet they're more interested in reaction to the discovery that a
"clade of extinct, siphon-bearing, fluid-feeding insects, early members of
the order Mecoptera (scorpionflies), were likely feeding on gymnospermous
ovulate secretions during the late Middle Jurassic to mid–Early
Cretaceous" as in the non-supplement main part of the paper.

Isn't a name just a permanent, human friendly tag that links information
on a recognizable organism lineage (aka a species, etc)? That purpose
seems perfectly fulfilled in this publication.  And there's a draft code
change out there that allows the e-only option. These names will probably
be OK post hoc.

Proposed "10.8.1. Where stability of nomenclature would be promoted
thereby, a name or nomenclatural act appearing in such a work (electronic
pre 2010) may be referred to the Commission for a ruling ..."

The editors of Science may have performed a particularly arrogant
downgrading of the taxonomic process here. They know the current code
requirements for sure (the authors probably didn't have much of a say in
the matter). But of all the poor behaviour in the world of taxonomy I
could rail against, code non-compliance of names of fossils because they
were merely e-published by an influential journal in an online supplement
is fairly well down the list.


Geoff



_______________________________________________

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