[Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory
John Grehan
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Thu Nov 18 06:49:01 CST 2010
I guess I would modify my statement to acknowledge that bad taxonomy,
whether in checklists or anything else, can create problems. Such
problems seem to have come from both professionals (properly trained?)
as well as others that may be characterized as 'ill-trained'.
John Grehan
________________________________
From: Cristian Ruiz Altaba [mailto:cruizaltaba at dgmambie.caib.es]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:28 PM
To: John Grehan; Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory
Just a warning from my own experience.
Wrong checklists can harm. And they do. Consider a stupid paper
published last January on the Iberian freshwater mussels, coauthored by
several non-taxonomists playing specialist. For no reason aside of
explicitly attacking my own research, they proposed to change the names
of endangered species. One of the most critically endangered freshwater
mussels in Europe was proposed to bear the name of an Algerian endemic.
Unbelievable, but true. Anf this is only one of a large number of silly
mistakes. The real problem is that conservation officials in the native
range of that species are spending a lot of time and money into changing
the names and making a real mess. In conservation action, taxonomy is
essential, at the very least because a judge and a jury may need an
understanding of what you're talking about. So at least in this case, a
ludicrous checklist is making havoc and surely helping to push some
species into complete extinction.
In other cases, a bad checklist in the hands of ill-trained officials
means diverting precious resources away from endemic taxa and into
invasive predators. This is what I see here in the Balearics.
Taxonomy matters, eventually.
All the best,
Cristian
Cristian R. Altaba
DG Biodiversitat
Conselleria de Medi Ambient
Govern de les Illes Balears
Just a caveat on checklists.
-----taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu ha escrit: -----
Per a: <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
De: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Enviat per: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Data: 17/11/2010 22:03
Assumpte: Re: [Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory
I had no opinion either way about the example, but was trying to
understand the general point. You corroborate my inference that one of
the general points was that the product would automatically be seen as
superior because of its source. That is the reality of all publications
regardless of their intrinsic merits.
I do agree with the general goal of more and better verifiability, and
for this instance you are in a position to at least publish your own
list and have it brought to the attention of end users. Perhaps some
people will not be able to conceive that a government publication could
have so many errors (assuming that is indeed the case) but others may
indeed prefer your list if you document the errors and present an
alternative list that does not suffer the same drawbacks.
On the other hand I am not sure how much damage an even erroneous list
can make since I would think any taxonomic list only provides some names
which are meaningless for anyone who does not already have some
familiarity with the taxa in question. (This is just an admittedly
uninformed opinion so its ok to jump on me for that - with explanation
though).
John Grehan
________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:43 PM
To: John Grehan; Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory
> This being the case I am not sure what the point being made for this
specific case other than a particular product is, according to Thorpe,
going to contain a lot of erroneous information and it is Thorpe's
concern that this will create a lot of damage by being uncritically
accepted by end users (at least that is my impression of his argument)
completely correct, Grehan! I was making a general point about data
sources for biodiversity, and merely illustrating this point with a real
example that I knew something about. If you don't like the example, fine
... what about the general point?
>These days its easy enough to produce pdf catalogues and for this
instance Thorpe could send his superior version to all the potential end
users (and through the NZ Entomology Society), and if his product is
seen to be superior it will be more widely used
here I think Grehan may be missing the general point, which is that the
inferior (according to me) product is likely to be widely seen to be
superior on the basis of having been through "peer review" and
effectively endorsed by such reputable institutions as Landcare and
NIWA. This is not science, but politics, and my example was chosen to
try to illustrate what is actually going on behind the scenes in the
real world. My plea is for people to think more in terms of
verifiability and backlinking of records, and less in terms of "it must
be correct or it wouldn't carry the institutional seals of approval" ...
Thorpe
________________________________
From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thu, 18 November, 2010 2:10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory
I've tried to follow the ins and outs of this discussion. My impression
is that Thorpe is critical of a forthcoming checklist because of the
problems he sees with much of the content. As Read has noted, there is
not much to respond on this as the critique is in advance of
publication.
The claimed problems in this specific case are, however, general in
nature - that any checklist, database, web pages or other publication
may have some or many errors as noted by others. This being the case I
am not sure what the point being made for this specific case other than
a particular product is, according to Thorpe, going to contain a lot of
erroneous information and it is Thorpe's concern that this will create a
lot of damage by being uncritically accepted by end users (at least that
is my impression of his argument).
But this problem is also of a general nature - that any publication or
other resource may have that effect. The only usual recourse is to
provide alternatives (which Thorpe appears to be doing with his web
pages). Such alternatives may gain traction or not, but that something
no individual can control. Certainly government science publications in
New Zealand may have an extended reach and impact, but that's life.
These days its easy enough to produce pdf catalogues and for this
instance Thorpe could send his superior version to all the potential end
users (and through the NZ Entomology Society), and if his product is
seen to be superior it will be more widely used (although a checklist
cannot be used more than one can identify the taxa in the first place).
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Read
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:10 AM
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory
> On 16 Nov 2010 at 22:43, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> The genus Paracymus DOES occur in N.Z., and I did neither say nor
imply
> that it didn't.
I think you did imply that it didn't, but never mind. It just
illustrates
the difficulty of responding to someone's criticism of an unpublished
item
which only they have seen. Which is why I think it is unfair to make
that
criticism public in a forum like this.
I take it Stephen that you now disown authorship of the 2003 checklist I
mentioned which committed the same 'sins' you object to. Namely new
generic records (in that case) quote, "derived from unpublished work by
the authors and the reviewers".
Is there an analogy here with former sinners being the most strict in
enforcing a new religion? I wonder.
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 <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
_______________________________________________
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 <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
_______________________________________________
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 <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list