[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Oct 7 20:18:18 CDT 2015
Just judging by the excerpt you quoted (I haven't looked at the source publication), this neotype designation fails
75.3.4. the author's reasons for believing the name-bearing type specimen(s) (i.e. holotype, or lectotype, or all syntypes, or prior neotype) to be lost or destroyed, and the steps that had been taken to trace it or them;
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015, 2:09 PM
Here is one such example
as you asked. It is really very simple
boilerplate from the Code
"The fact that the type was made up of
pieces of multiple species does
not
invalidate the name (Art. 17.1), and since the type is lost,
and the
name involved in taxonomic
confusion, a neotype is required (Art. 75).
The specimen here designated neotype is a male
labeled “Rodrigues i.;
viii–xi.1918; H
J Snell &; H P Thomasset/ Percy Sladen; Trust exped.;
Brit. Mus.; 1926-246/ NEOTYPE; Bostrichus
cephalotes; Olivier 1790;
desg. M. A.
Ivie” and deposited in the Natural History Museum, London.
The neotype is from a different place than
the original type, but
because of a lack of
available specimens from Réunion, and because this
African species was certainly introduced to
that island from the
mainland, it is from a
neighboring island, as close to the original type
locality as is practical. Under Art. 76.3, the
type locality is now
considered to be
Rodrigues Island.
This neotype is designated
for the express purpose of clarifying the
taxonomic status and type locality. The
characters that distinguish this
taxon are
those of Bostrychoplites cornutus (Olivier) as given by
Lesne
(1899, 1929), Basilewski (1952) and
others. The sex of the neotype
differs from
that of the lost type, as allowed under Art. 75.3.5,
because it is desirable to secure stability of
nomenclature.
As such, Bostrichus cephalotes
Olivier 1790 is now to be considered a
synonym."
Mike
On
10/7/2015 6:01 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Ah, Mike, my favourite sparring partner!
Well, perhaps you could give me an example of your attempts
to validly designate neotypes, and I will then reconsider my
statement accordingly, though, please bear in mind that
"difficult" is a vaguely defined continuum, and I
didn't specify how difficult exactly. At the very least,
Art. 75 of the Code is rather long winded, and therefore
somewhat "difficult" to get one's head around.
It could do with simplification.
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why
Martin Fikacek resign
> To:
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Thursday, 8
October, 2015, 12:06 PM
>
> Stephen,
>
> Please, explain how
exactly
> the Code makes
designating a needed Neotype
> difficult? I have done it
several times, and
> it has
never been difficult.
>
> Mike
>
> On
> 10/7/2015 4:50 PM, Stephen
Thorpe wrote:
> >
Incidentally, the only possible problems
> arising from the description
of this fly are if there turns
> out to be more than one
externally identical species of such
> fly, in sympatry, with
different internal genitalia and/or
> DNA. Then, we can't ever
know which species was
> described. However, this is
essentially the same problem as
> with early descriptions by
Linnaeus, etc., where types no
> longer exist. The problem is
in principle rather easy to
> solve with a neotype, though
the current Code makes that
> difficult. At worst, one just
has to make a choice of which
> species was described, and
hopefully nobody else will insist
> on a contrary choice! The
Code really needs to try to make
> potential problems easily
solvable, rather then creating
> problems!
> >
> >
> Stephen
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 8/10/15, Doug
Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] why
> Martin
Fikacek resign
> > To:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Received:
Thursday, 8
> October, 2015,
11:28 AM
> >
> > Martin:
> >
> > If I might,
let me comment
> on
> > a few
things:
> > (1) this
fly is not the
> first
> > animal
species
> described solely
from a
> > photograph,
nor even the
> first insect
(as far
> > as I
> can tell, that honor
> > goes
> to Bebearia
> > banksi,
a
> nymphalid described in
1998 - with thanks to
> > Cosmin
Manci for pointing
> that
out to me), so
> > it
> does not set a
> > precedent;
> it is simply
> > one of a
> growing list.
> > (2) the
> authors did
> > not attempt
to
> conceal the facts of
the case, or
> > (for
example) refer to a
> deposited specimen
> > which
> never existed, so the
> > work
> cannot be
> > dismissed
as
> fraudulent in any
way.
> > (3)
> if
> > you are
concerned about
> people
naming new species based on
> >
> > limited or
potentially
> fabricated
evidence
> > even
> though the Code allows
> > for
> it, then
> > why not
submit a
> letter to the
Commission (with a few
> > thousand
signatories,
> preferably)
in favor of
> > amending
the Code in such
> > a way as to
help
> > prevent
what you see as being
> abusive? For example,
> > establishing
a strict set of
> guidelines
for
> > public
> review of taxonomic
> > works,
> which
> > must be met
before a
> name will be
considered available
> > under the
Code, rather than
> simply
accepting as
> > available
virtually
> > anything
that meets the
> > Code's
definition of
> "published"? I and
others
> > -
> > including
other Commissioners
> - have
been
> > advocating
> this sort of change
> > for
> years
> > now, and
oddly there
> seems to be
little public support for
> >
> > such
measures. Would you not
> like to be
> > able to
cast a
> vote for or
> > against
any
> > given
proposed new name
> BEFORE
being compelled to recognize
> >
> > it? [Case
in point: had such
> a
mechanism
> > existed,
I
> would have voted
> > against
> > Bebearia
banksi, and in favor
> of
Marleyimyia xylocopae]
> > (4) if you
are specifically
> concerned
with
> > issues
of
> quality control in
> > the
> editorial
> > process
at
> Zookeys, then I might
think you'd have a
> > better
> > chance of
effecting change
> by
> > remaining
within the
> system, and
pushing
> > for a
> dialogue on editorial policy
there,
> > rather than
resigning your
> > post. That
is,
> > admittedly,
just my two cents
> as an
outsider.
> >
> > As I've
noted
> elsewhere,
> > this
particular
> case was
well-documented, and
> > passed what
I assume to be a
> rigorous
> > peer-review
> process. The authors
> > made
> a
> > compelling
case that
> this is a new
taxon, at the very least,
> > and
> > that is
more than I can say
> for
many
> > other
recent
> taxonomic works
I've
> > seen
> > for which
type specimens DO
> exist. I
rather suspect that the
> >
> > editors and
reviewers were
> entirely
> > prepared
to
> reject this paper had
it
> > not
> > appeared to
be a "safe
> bet"
to them, and therefore
> > would not
judge
> > them as
harshly as you
> > appear to
be doing. Had this
> work
been authored
> > by
> someone with no credentials,
in a journal
> > with no
peer review, I
> > would
probably be
> > condemning
it, as well; but
> the Code
does not allow us
> > to judge
cases by their
> merits
before accepting
> > new names,
just by
> > compliance
or lack
> > thereof,
and at times this
> can be a
problem. If we as
> > a community
are concerned
> about
possible abuses
> > of
> the Code, and we WANT
> > to
> judge cases
> > based on
their
> merits, then the
solution is to change the
> >
> > system -
specifically, such
> that
good
> > science
will
> flourish, /and bad
> > science
> > will be
rejected/. That much
> is in
our power, it just takes
> >
> > will,
commitment, and
> consensus.
Perhaps
> > some
> day there will be a
> > critical
mass of
> > taxonomists
who are fed up
> enough to
push for this sort
> > of change,
but I've been
> pushing
for 20
> > years
now,
> and it still seems
to
> > be
> all
> > uphill.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > --
> > Doug
> > Yanega
Dept. of
> Entomology
> > Entomology
Research
> Museum
> > Univ. of
> California, Riverside, CA
92521-0314
> >
> skype: dyanega
> > phone:
(951)
> > 827-4315
(disclaimer:
> opinions are
mine, not UCR's)
> >
>
http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> > "There are
some
> enterprises
> > in which
a
> careful
disorderliness
> >
> > is the true
method" - Herman
> Melville,
> > Moby Dick,
Chap.
> 82
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
> F.R.E.S.
>
> Montana Entomology
> Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> NW
> corner of Lincoln and
S.19th
> Montana State
> University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> (406)
> 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> .
>
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
F.R.E.S.
Montana Entomology
Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
NW
corner of Lincoln and S.19th
Montana State
University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
(406)
994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list