[Taxacom] Why stability?

[Robin Leech]

Stephen, 

For many years now, an identification to species, and providing a species name, will be what a competent taxtonomist says it is. 
For birds and mammals, and many plants, I trust when my polar bear specialist friend says that the picture shows a cross between a 
male polar bear and a female grizzly bear, or vise versa (that he could tell me these kinds of differenes amazes me! I guess some 
people just 'know their stuff'.), or if one of my birder friends tells me that it is a Ruffled Spouse, or if my botanist friend 
tells me that it is a Salix hybrid.  And If my former professor, a specialist on carabid beetles, said that the specimen is an 
introduced European species, Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger, 1798), I will not doubt his ID.

All this is independent of literature. It may have taken time and experience and a thorough knowledge of the literature to permit the 
competent taxonomist to give the ID.  However, the competent taxonomist does not have to go back to the literature at all levels or on all 
occasions to provide a correct ID.  Perhaps this is because all the literature is encrypted in the memory banks of the competent taxonomist. 
The case I am about to give below is a good example.

For example, this morning, I had a picture sent to me of a spider that was found in the stomach of a fish in the foothils of the Rockies.
One glance and I could put a genus name on it.  Until I can see more with the specimen cleaned, this is almost as far as I can go.  I could 
go so far as to say, on the basis of some of the palpal features I can see that it could one of about 4 species.  

One short glance tells me: Order Araneae; Family Linyphiidae; Subgfamily Erigoninae; genus Erigone. Full stop. Probably one of several species 
I know to see (get that - to see, no texts or published references yet!), but I need to see more detail to provide a species ID. Sex: male.

Now, if the fish biologist guy needs more, he will clean the specimen and send to me.  At that point, should a check to the literature be 
required, I will provide a species' name afer a perusal of all the revisions and additions (though I am pretty well up-to-date) to the genus 
Erigone that I have. Otherwise, I will give him the name from my own 600 terabyte memory bank reserved for spiders.  Interestingly, that memory 
banks also includes the author's name and the year of description, and, if there has been a generic shift.  I have separate banks for other memory storage. 

Why are we having all this discussion?  I thought that we solved the issues here a couple or three years ago or more.

Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: April-30-15 8:36 PM
To: Taxacom; JF Mate
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?

Jason,

I didn't have you in mind when I said "I was responding to others who had suggested that authors should always cite the publication used for the identification of any species that they mention. Basically, their motivation is probably merely to increase citation rates in taxonomy."

As for your other comments, you are talking about information (published revisions, etc.) which goes with the species name, rather than needing to be cited every time someone identifies that species. What you are in effect suggesting is that everyone who identifies a species needs to provide a taxonomic literature search on that species, each and every time! Nonsense!

You (and others) are still missing the point that if I see a single specimen, already identified in a collection, but do not know how it was identified, if it is distinctive enough, I can recognise that species again. Nowhere in this picture is any published taxon circumscription.

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 1/5/15, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
 To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Friday, 1 May, 2015, 1:44 PM
 
 Stephen, I really don´t want to get
 into the middle of this again but
 as you like to go down rabbit´s warrens maybe I can throw  you a torch.
 
 
 No Stephen, that is your intrepretation. What I said was  that in doing  so, revisionary work would get cited as well. Or did you not  say (in  regards to Hoser mopping-up names) that species descriptions  matter  not, but it is good taxonomic work that counts? I am  guessing that is  because the brilliant redescriptions will allow others to  identify  material.
 
 "My comment was intended to point out that, in a great many  cases,  identifications are not made using any specific publication,  even  identifications down to the species level. Many names do not  have any  well defined "taxonomic concepts" associated with them, but  may  nevertheless be names for distinctive species which are  easily  identified by direct comparison of specimens (given a bit  of  experience with the group)."
 
 This is appeal to authority as well as ignoring future  needs. Your  experience came from literature and identified material  (which was  either identified via comparison to type or literature or a  previous  iteration). You are not a platonic entomologist that  generates species  concepts through inward contemplation. If you can´t  remember how you  acquired this "experience", then it is your choice to put  whatever  complimentary information on the label you see fit. No  additional  information would stand for "S. Thorpe´s opinion". Fair  enough.
 However, for the vastly larger army of individuals who do  use  literature to identify material, citing the source is easily  done and  helpful for others in the future when the ´Many names with  no defined  "taxonomic concepts"´ are in the minority.
 
 Jason
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.