[Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory

Tue Nov 16 19:47:19 CST 2010

Geoff,

Thanks for the full reply, as I can now see exactly where we disagree:

>You've explained that you were offered two opportunities to be involved in this 
>project, first as an author, then as a reviewer. Unfortunately for everybody 
>you, presumably the best expert to do a particular segment, declined both of 
>them. It's not a good look that you are now complaining that it is an inferior 
>product to what you could have done. Why would we not suspect this is partly 
>some sort of sour grapes reaction on your part?

Well, that is one way of looking at it, but not mine. I initially turned down an 
opportunity to freely contribute to it because I did not think that the format 
restrictions would do it justice (one of those being the static nature of hard 
copy checklists*, and lack of full synonymies). There were also certain other 
problems which I really don't want to discuss, but suffice it to say that I was 
wary of a repeat of certain past experiences of this kind. The 
immediate implications of this seemed to be that the beetles would just be done 
to genus, repeating verbatim a certain past publication to which I had 
contributed. I was OK with this, as I really don't think a species list in this 
context is at all helpful for many beetle groups in the present state of 
knowledge. When I found out that a species list was going to be done, and by 
someone who isn't a recognised beetle specialist, then I offered to help, asking 
only for some aknowledgement. What I then turned down was in effect the 
opportunity to do anonymously, and for free, the hardest bits of what someone 
else was being paid to do! Sour grapes???? I am not complaining that 'it is an 
inferior product to what you could have done', I am pointing out that there are 
a significant number of "very dodgy bits" in something which may get used for 
serious purposes - I am not saying anything about me or what I could have done 
instead!

>Noting also that the checklists are a relatively minor component of these review 
>volumes

I disagree - they may be minor in terms of the proportion of the chapter that 
they take up, but the data from them will flow elsewhere, far beyond the 
physical book, and they presumably do form the taxonomic foundation upon which 
the generalities talked about in the text of the chapter are based?

>And they will have irritating silly errors like your non-updated beetle, and a 
>few spelling mistakes too probably, but hey, perfection forever eludes us

Well, there is no objective measure of "significance" in this context, but I at 
least think I am talking about a significant number of problems, not just one or 
two "silly errors". I haven't yet finished estimating the extent of the 
problems, but 20-25% does not seem unreasonable at this point...

>For the first volume, where my group polychaetes appeared, we were asked to 
>provide some indication of the known but unpublished generic and species 
>occurrences, and so we did, supported by station numbers that would enable 
>backchecking in the museums later when these taxa were finally fully 
>investigated. This, while not ideal, seemed a reasonable way of doing it. People 
>can disregard such records as not fully verified - because they aren't - but I 
>think they are of interest

Again, this is not what I am talking about - I am taking about 
records/combinations/taxonomic placements which contradict the current published 
literature, but which are presented in the Inventory without comment and without 
any supporting evidence whatsoever to facilitate backchecking. I agree that your 
approach, as explained above, is a sensible one, but it isn't what I'm talking 
about. Can't you see how difficult it might be to debunk unsupported records 
rubberstamped by reputable institutions? People will just think "well, I trust 
XXX, so they must know something that I don't that makes what they claim 
correct". For example, there is a record of a Paracymus n.sp. (endemic, 
freshwater) [no other information]. That's kinda surprising if you know the 
group in the N.Z. context! Funny thing, though, that there is a 1970 literature 
record of a single specimen of Paracymus sp. (of unknown identity). Even funnier 
that this very specimen was determined (by a world authority, and published in 
2000) to be an introduced and terrestrial species of another genus in the same 
family, but otherwise unrelated. But, if you trust the Inventory, the record 
therein could be based on a specimen or specimens in any collection anywhere in 
the world, identified by any one or more of a number of people, or perhaps they 
discovered that the second ID was based on a specimen wrongly thought to be the 
1970 specimen, and the latter record was true after all??? We just don't know, 
and THAT is where I have a problem ...

Cheers,

Stephen

* today, 4 new species of beetle were described from N.Z. (by a lead author from 
Spain). Those are now on Wikispecies, but not, of course, in the Inventory...

________________________________
From: Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 17 November, 2010 1:57:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory

Hi Stephen,

You've explained that you were offered two opportunities to be involved in this 
project, first as
an author, then as a reviewer. Unfortunately for everybody you, presumably the 
best expert to
do a particular segment, declined both of them. It's not a good look that you 
are now
complaining that it is an inferior product to what you could have done. Why 
would we not
suspect this is partly some sort of sour grapes reaction on your part?

It's a bit difficult to respond to your comments of one part of just one of the 
many checklists in
the book because, unlike you, I don't have a prepublication pdf and can't see 
exactly what the
presentation is in volume 2 that you find inadequate. This is why it seems to me 
unfair that
you have launched into public criticism of it, before we can all join in on the 
topic (when the
book is published - noting you've not seen the book itself - just like the rest 
of us), and I
regret that you couldn't wait till then. Noting also that the checklists are a 
relatively minor
component of these review volumes.

For the first volume, where my group polychaetes appeared, we were asked to 
provide some
indication of the known but unpublished generic and species occurrences, and so 
we did,
supported by station numbers that would enable backchecking in the museums later 
when
these taxa were finally fully investigated. This, while not ideal, seemed a 
reasonable way of
doing it. People can disregard such records as not fully verified - because they 
aren't - but I
think they are of interest.

Static printed checklists *do* have value as frozen-in-time states of the play, 
even today. And
they will have irritating silly errors like your non-updated beetle, and a few 
spelling mistakes
too probably, but hey, perfection forever eludes us.

Geoff

On 16 Nov 2010 at 15:42, Stephen Thorpe wrote:

[...]  As someone who spends most of my time trying to
> build a solid and freely available information resource on biodiversity, the
> seriousness of an officially endorsed publication on N.Z. beetles which is 
>maybe
> 25% utter bo!!ocks, and which will probably be widely used and cited, may seem
> somewhat greater to me than to most other people? Perhaps you could comment on
> whether you see that, assuming that it is true, as either a problem or as
> nothing of any importance? And whether you see any value in checklists with no
> supporting evidence?
> Stephen

>
> ________________________________
> From: Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Wed, 17 November, 2010 12:14:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory
>
>
> Thanks Stephen,
>
> Interesting reading for all, and a fine demonstration of why the professional
> entomologists whose work failings you seem often to complain about have become
> wary of your tendency towards erratic and injudicious behaviour. What a talent
> you have for getting yourself into strife.  I'm sure everyone can better
> understand now why you made the comments you did, and value them 
appropriately.
>
> Best,
>
> Geoff
>
> >>> Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 11/17/10 10:21 AM >>>