[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Oct 8 16:13:12 CDT 2015
That is a fair assessment, Scott. I didn't specify how "difficult", after all. Given that some taxonomists fail to properly follow other, realtively simpler, Code requirements (e.g. statements of deposition of holotypes, etc.), I think it is fair to assume that some will struggle with neotypes, thus making this part of the Code relatively "difficult". However, I have no desire to continue debating "how long is a piece of string", i.e. how "difficult" is "difficult", however strong Mike's views are on the subject.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/10/15, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, mivie at montana.edu
Received: Friday, 9 October, 2015, 9:59 AM
My own
view on Neotypes is that they are "more" difficult
to set than a holotype in the original description in that
the neeotype reqires more information to be provided as
outlined in the code, eg an explanation of why, and what
evidence the holotype is lost, justification for the
neotypes locality, etc. All of which are basically ensuring
its a valid replacement for the lost holotype and its being
done for a good reason. I do not think this makes them
particularly difficult to set, you just have to do the work
to get the required information to make the case. However I
would acknowledge there is more to it than the
holotype.
Cheers,
Scott
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:47
PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
I
don't know how Mike can claim to have refuted the
alleged "difficulty", when this is a vague notion.
Mike might not find it to be at all difficult, but this
isn't all about him. I wonder if those who give out NSF
grants are all bullish "I'm right, even when
I'm wrong" types??
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/10/15, 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: Friday, 9 October, 2015, 9:41 AM
Still, all these diversions aside,
Stephen has never backed up his libel
of the Code saying it was difficult to designate a
Neotype.
That is
proven incorrect. I am sure no one cares anymore.
Mike
On 10/8/2015 1:34 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> It is very curious the way that Mike has handled
this
thread - almost as if he was trying to set a trap for
me!
First off, he fixates on a vague and tangential comment
I
made about the Code making neotype designations
"difficult".
He interrogates me as to exactly why I think it is
"difficult". When I reply with a request for him
to provide
an example, he leaves out a crucial passage. I
explicitly
state that I am basing my judgement on his example as
presented by him, and I point out that the neotype
designation, as presented by him, is invalid. He then
tries
desperately to save himself with some sort of inane
sophistry along the lines of "lost" means
"can't find it",
so stating that something is lost is equivalent to
statting
a reason why one thinks it is lost (i.e. "I can't
find it").
Finally, he provides the crucial missing passage, and
then
claims victory over me! Very odd indeed ...
>
> 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,
2:27 PM
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
--
__________________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
--
Scott
Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da
Universidade de São PauloDivisão de Vertebrados
(Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré,
481, Ipiranga04263-000, São Paulo, SP,
Brasilhttp://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728Skype:
FaendalimasMobile Phone: +55 11
974 74 9095
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list