[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
Ivie, Michael
mivie at montana.edu
Wed Oct 7 22:59:08 CDT 2015
Hmm, did this get left out of earlier sendings?
"B. and W. (2007) list the type of Bostrichus cephalotes Olivier to be in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, without comment, but it had already been reported lost by the curator of that collection, bostrichid specialist Pierre Lesne (Lesne 1905, 1909), and was not reported to have been seen by any other researcher, including my failed search for it on several visits to Paris. W. (in litt.) confirmed that the actual type was not seen to be there, therefore, the B. and W. (2007) reference is for where it should be, not where it actually resides. The collection of the King of France was one of the collections that formed the core of the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, so there is nowhere else to expect it. Thus, the type of Bostrichus cephalotes Olivier must be considered to be lost."
________________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:29 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Ivie, Michael
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
But you didn't even say that you couldn't find it. You just said it was lost. That's not a reason!
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" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015, 2:30 PM
I didn't think that part could be
considered hard, as the requirement is
just that you explain why. You can say "I couldn't
find it" and that is
actually all that is required. Doing it correctly and
well is not hard,
doing it "legally" is easy.
On 10/7/2015 7:18 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
__________________________________________________
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list