[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter - off list

[Lynn Raw]

Sorry, my fault entirely.

Lynn



On 21 Apr 2011, at 09:00, Jim Croft wrote:

> if I got this, it probably did not go 'off list'  ;)
> 
> jim
> 
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org> wrote:
>> Donat,
>> 
>> This is where the ICZN can make an enormous difference, just with a few lines in the Code. They need to put in a clause that all descriptions of new taxa are the property of science and therefore not subject to copyright. If not available as free open access publications at the time of publication then they have no validity under the Code. I think this even more important than the situation with types. Most people refer far more to original descriptions than types and descriptions in any case have a much better survival rate than types. This may not be the case in future if they are in the hands of publishers who could go out of business or be bought up by others with different agendas.
>> 
>> Most publishers are owned by big business and if you did this I am sure that suddenly the ICZN and taxonomy would find much more money coming their way as business tries to reassert its influence and regain their profits in this area.
>> 
>> Has anyone thought that DNA and molecular taxonomy is enormously funded because these funds are mostly spent on the similarly enormously expensive equipment and materials in turn generating very satisfactory profits for executives and shareholders.
>> 
>> Lynn
>> 
>> On 21 Apr 2011, at 07:00, Donat Agosti wrote:
>> 
>>> What I like about barcode: I can look at it.
>>> What I do not like about taxonomy: I cannot look at species descriptions.
>>> 
>>> There are approximately 17,000 new species described and a multitude of
>>> redescriptions. They are not only not available, because in print or
>>> copyrighted but to a very little elite, but they are also in the wrong
>>> format: In journals not as treatments.
>>> 
>>> In today's digital Internet world we do want to get to get to the item of
>>> interest as straight as possible and in taxonomy those are the taxonomic
>>> treatments of the taxa. But our community trots along as usual publishing
>>> the same way we did since 1758 in Zoology, which was then the same that
>>> Plato and others did a bit earlier. Few changed, such as Zookeys, or in fact
>>> EOL or species-id that provide taxon-based access.
>>> A taxonomic treatment is more than just verbatim that so many are happy to
>>> read in pdf, one at once, shipped to you by a colleague by email (a bit
>>> faster than the reprints ten years ago). It can be a document that is very
>>> rich because it has live link to external resources; it could be formatted
>>> in a way that machine could use it and reuse it for your particular purpose.
>>> Unfortunately, it is not just the publisher, but the authors who do not want
>>> to make their publication disseminated as widely as possible. Why else is
>>> the overwhelming part of Zootaxa closed to the public?
>>> 
>>> The  taxonomists have not the product that is appealing to outside funding.
>>> Rod page in his blog about the post-taxonomic age is right, the facts point
>>> towards the irrelevance of taxonomy - in a time where it could have its
>>> rival thanks to all what the digital revolution has to offer, and that is
>>> not least open access. And is this not at the core of science: be able to
>>> criticize.
>>> We can say that I do not believe in a BarCode, because you do not just have
>>> the one but its context to work with. We cannot do this in taxonomy in
>>> general, and that's part of the current tragedy why taxonomy does NOT
>>> matter.
>>> 
>>> Donat
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> _________________
> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://about.me/jrc
> 'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point
> of doubtful sanity.'
>  - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)
> 
> Please send URLs, not attachments:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html