[Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new dragonflies from Africa

[Richard Pyle]

The Policy makers probably won't read (or understand) the paper itself.  But they *might* hear about it through the media coverage -- which is the topic that actually started this discussion (i.e., whether the media attention is a good thing or not).  I do agree that media coverage of such things is not guaranteed to get policymakers to pay attention to biodiversity issues.  But my point was that we CAN essentially guarantee that they WON'T pay attention to biodiversity issues if those issues DON'T get covered in the popular media.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 12:33 PM
> To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Cc: 'taxacom'
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new dragonflies from
> Africa
> 
> Oops, I see now that the paper is freely available! I was sure Rod said it wasn't! I
> still don't think that (m)any policy makers will take the time to read it though.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 14/12/15, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new dragonflies	from
> 	Africa
>  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>  Cc: "'taxacom'" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015, 6:26 PM
> 
>  So, let me see if I get this right?
>  Drawing people's attention to the things that really matter,  *in a paper which
> isn't open access*! That's some strategy  for saving the world ...
> 
>  Stephen
> 
>  --------------------------------------------
>  On Mon, 14/12/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>  wrote:
> 
>   Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new
> dragonflies    from    Africa
>   To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>   Cc: "'taxacom'" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>   Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015, 6:14 PM
> 
>   Oh, and by the way... I
>   spent a few hours going through the Odonata paper in some
>   detail yesterday and I have to say that, speaking as one  of
>   the 0.000002% of the world's population who is a
>   taxonomist, I was extremely impressed with the quality of
>   the work (to whatever extent an ichthyologist can evaluate
>   an entomological paper). Each species description spans
>   several pages and includes robust information on taxonomic
>   context, material studied, both genetic and morphological
>   data, and range & ecology, and each description also
>   includes multiple figures (including color) and an  etymology
>   section. The seven pages of introductory text are  extremely
>   well-written and covers a wide range of important topics
>   that we often ramble endlessly about here on Taxacom, such
>   as why naming species is important for conservation, why
>   taxonomy needs more support, and why species MATTER (for
>   understanding history, environment, evolution, and for
>   humanity).  So it seems to me that the authors did a  superb
>   job both scientifically, and from the perspective of  drawing
>   people's attention to the issues that really matter.
> 
>   Aloha,
>   Rich
> 
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>   > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:15
>   AM
>   > To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>   > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs
>   names: 60 new dragonflies from
>   >
>   Africa
>   >
>   > Rich,
>   >
>   > I didn't say
>   significance of the taxonomy TO WHOM! Also, I very much
>   doubt
>   > that policy-makers get their
>   information from the popular media!
>   >
>   > Stephen
>   >
>   >
>   --------------------------------------------
>   > On Mon, 14/12/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>   wrote:
>   >
>   >  Subject:
>   RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new
>   dragonflies    from
>   >     Africa
>   >  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'"
>   <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>   >  Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015,
>   10:04 AM
>   >
>   >
>   Sorry.... one more, then
>   >  I'll
>   shut up:
>   >
>   >  >
>   So, I
>   >  was just suggesting that media
>   coverage should be  proportional to the  >
>   > significance of the  taxonomy, and
>   elevating 60 new dragonflies out of all  >
>   > proportion seems wrong to me.
>   >
>   >  I would argue that
>   media
>   >  coverage should be proportional
>   to the likelihood that it  will actually influence
>   > non-biologists (particularly
>   policy-makers).  There is a poor (perhaps even
>   > inverse?)  correlation between what a
>   good taxonomist will find of  significance,
>   > and what will be significant to the rest
>   of  the 99.999998% of the
>   >
>   population.  We don't need the  media coverage to
>   inspire the ~15,000
>   > taxonomists of
>   the  world; it's the other 7 billion (ish) that
>   we're  trying to
>   > engage.
>   >
>   >  Aloha,
>   >  Rich