[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Fri Oct 9 12:47:48 CDT 2015
Dear John,
That (a Neotype) would only be valid if there is some confusion about
the identity. The Code does not allow Neotypes in cases where there is
no confusion about what the species is. In this case there is nothing
known that is even close to it, so its identity is not confused. The
authors covered that well in the description.
Mike
On 10/9/2015 3:30 AM, John Noyes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that in this case it should be possible to designate a neotype from an extant, preserved specimen. So muDear ch the better if the neotype is the holotype of a previously described species so that the "new" species can be treated as a junior synonym [although in this particular case that seems unlikely]. It can be safely assumed that the photographed holotype no longer exists. So long as the specimen designated as neotype is pretty damned similar to the one in the photograph and all other conditions of designating a neotype are met according to the ICZN then I cannot see a problem.
>
> Maybe that is too mischievous??
>
> John
>
> John Noyes
> Scientific Associate
> Department of Life Sciences
> Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South Kensington
> London SW7 5BD
> UK
> jsn at nhm.ac.uk
> Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
> Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
> www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: 07 October 2015 21:04
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; bayshark at exemail.com.au
> Cc: penev at pensoft.net
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
>
> I'm sure that people are playing right into Lyubo's hands by adding to the publicity about this (any publicity is good publicity!) Pensoft are a commercial publisher. I have pretty much given up on them as well, largely because Biodiversity Data Journal has now become little more than a venue for promotional papers, miles away from its initially stated philosophy.
>
> Nevertheless, many of the reasons cited against describing new species from photos are quite unconvincing. Why is palaeontology considered to be science? An impression in rock, or a partly obscured amber inclusion are both on a par with a photograph, given that you can't see all the relevant characters, you can't dissect, and you can't extract DNA (most of the time).
>
> It would be a very bad idea to describe a new species of hydrophilid beetle (Martin Fikacek's speciality) from photograph(s) of a live specimen, but this may not apply equally to other groups of organisms. Iterestingly, Fikacek does describe fossil hydrophilids!
>
> One thing, however, that Marshall & Evenhuis did misinterpret from the Code relates to "Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated". This is actually quite irrelevant! Designating a specimen as holotype via a photograph, is what Marshall & Evenhuis have done. This is very different from designating a photograph of a specimen as holotype! The above quote from the Code simply reduces the latter to the former, but that is irrelevant here.
>
> As for Vratislav's P.S.: >If this will continue, anybody can create not just new species, but complete new family using just Photoshop.<
>
> Anybody can and always could do effectively that anyway. Write a verbal description based on fictional characters, maybe add a few fanciful drawings, and conveniently claim the holotype to have been subsequently lost. Lost holotypes do not invalidate described taxa.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 7/10/15, bayshark at exemail.com.au <bayshark at exemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Subject: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Wednesday, 7 October, 2015, 9:44 PM
>
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/martin.fikacek.7/posts/10206448754731807
>
>
>
>
>
> I just resigned for the position of editor in ZooKeys for two reasons: by the recent publication of a description of a new species based on photos ZooKeys evidently decided for the direction of "bad science and good publicity" which is the direction I cannot support. In addition, they recently introduced a new automatic system "bullying"
> editors, which now
> makes editors basically non-paid slaves with very limited decision power. I simply cannot work for such a journal anymore. Sorry to everybody, and thanks for years of author-editor cooperation.
>
>
>
> My letter to editors is attached below:
>
>
>
> Dear editors,
>
>
>
> I was really shocked when I discovered the paper entitled "New species without dead bodies: a case for photobased descriptions, illustrated by a striking new species of Marleyimyia Hesse (Diptera,
> Bombyliidae) from South
> Africa" published few days ago in ZooKeys. The paper is exremely dangerous for several aspects:
>
>
>
> (1) It misuses the weak parts of the Code which were originally designed to keep some very old names valid, which were described in historical publications mostly in 18th century. In difference to what the authors are writing in the paper, this Article was not designed to solve the situation with lost holotypes, but to keep valid the names which were really based only on illustrations in times when no rules were given as it concerns the quality of taxonomic descriptions. Using the same Article for today is really ridiculous attempt to use this Article to cheat the system. Moreover, note the word "illustration" in the text of the Article (i.e. NOT a
> photograph!!!)
>
>
>
> (2) It makes a very dangerous precedence for future generations. Now everybody may try to describe a new big insect (cetonid beetle, wasp,
> butterfly) based just on the photographs. I am sure good entomologists will not do that, or would at least do that only once all needed characters are really visible. Unfortunately the entomology is full of crazy individuals focused only in describing new taxa and producing new names, no need to give examples as everybody knows some of them. These individuals were difficult to deal with even until now, basically producing chaos in taxonomy of particular group and partly causing that taxonomy is often considered as non-scientific. You now opened a brand new way for these people how to do even worse work!
>
>
>
> (3) In my opinion neither the authors of the above paper, nor the editorial board is evidently not aware of the reason why voucher specimen (holotype) is needed when a species is describe. It is not because the author should have it easy to illustrate all needed characters. It it because only the specimen itself form a firm base for the name. All taxonomic work, identification of next specimens found etc. is in fact testing the hypothesis that the specimens in your hand are conspecific with the holotype. To test that hypothesis, you may re-examine the holotype, extract new characters which were not stated or illustrated in the original description etc. Testing the hypothesis and providing the way how to falsify it is what makes taxonomy a science! In case of the new South African species, nothing of this is possible - nobody will ever be able to test the hypothesis that the specimens in hand are conspecific with the holotype (and no other characters will be ever known than those illustrated on the photos). This basically moves this paper (and taxonomy in
> general) REALLY
> OUT OF SCIENCE. Hence, this is a step backward, not an innovative way as you present it.
>
>
>
> I appreciate the effort of Pensoft and ZooKeys to try innovative ways of taxonomic publishing. However, I would expect that you would think about your steps and decision properly, evaluating the possible risks of such steps for the future of taxonomy. I did not notice anything like that in your actions and decisions within last months, including the publication of the above paper. Editorial board is never consulted in such cases, and if the editors provide their critique, this is rarely followed.
> In opposite,
> you recently introduced a system of "bullying" the editors.
> I understand all
> these actions in the way that editors are just workers you use FOR FREE (we are not paid for that), but never as partners with whom problematic things should be discussed.
>
>
>
> To sum up - by publishing the photo-based description of Marleyimyia, ZooKeys moves into the position of journals trying to break up the good practices in taxonomy for the sake of publicity. Its not only "the border of taxonomic malpractice", it is in fact the "border of non-science". I do not want to provide my time to the journal going in this really dangerous direction. That is why I am resigning immediatelly from the editorial board of ZooKeys.
>
>
>
> Thanks for understanding!
>
>
>
> With best regards
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> Vratislav
>
> (name) Vratislav Richard Eugene Maria John Baptist
>
> (surname) of Bejšák (read as a
> Bayshark)-Colloredo-Mansfeld
>
> website: www.coleoptera.org
>
> address: P.O.Box 3335 , Redfern, NSW 2016 AUSTRALIA
>
> phone : +61 0420602040
> http://www.facebook.com/bayshark
> alternate email: bayshark at ymail.com
> (to iPhone)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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