[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Oct 9 17:12:02 CDT 2015
I hate attention, but I feel obliged to try to carry a debate through to a reasonably satisfactory outcome.
Mike said [quote]They are not difficult for a reasonably intelligent person qualified to be handling nomenclatural maters [sic!] who can read ... [unquote]
Easy to say, as a device of rhetoric, but prove it! We've already seen the very intelligent and excellent taxonomist John Noyes make a statement about neotypes which you quite rightly corrected.
Face it Mike, you are trying to refute something which actually has very little precise meaning (i.e. that designating neotypes is, in some unspecified sense, "difficult"). If you set the unspecified level of difficulty too high, then it is too easy to refute, and if I set it too low, then it is too easy to defend! The argument has become pure rhetoric! Let it go, if you can ...
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 10/10/15, 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: Saturday, 10 October, 2015, 10:48 AM
[sigh] It is not
difficult, but you do have to follow the strictures in
the Code. Think of those strictures more as a
road map to success than
difficult
barriers. They are not difficult for a reasonably
intelligent
person qualified to be handling
nomenclatural maters who can read either
the Official English or French versions of the
Code, or one of the
unofficial translations
into Chinese (Simplified), Chinese
(Traditional), Czech, German, Greek, Japanese,
Russian or Spanish.
Further, the issue of whether it is difficult
to DESIGNATE a Neotype is
separate from
whether or not a Neotype is allowed, which is what John
and I were discussing. But, that is not hard
either.
Exceptional (def.)
adjective, unusual; not typical.
Clear to those who want it to be, perhaps not
to those who want attention.
Mike
On
10/9/2015 3:00 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> All of which further proves my point that
the Code requirements for neotypes are somewhat
"difficult", or else we wouldn't be having
such divergent opinions offered from veteran
entomologists!
>
>
Q.E.D.
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 10/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why
Martin Fikacek resign
> To:
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Saturday, 10
October, 2015, 6:47 AM
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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