[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Oct 9 17:31:31 CDT 2015
So, you can't let it go then! Tell you what, I'll quit while I'm ahead ...
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, 11:17 AM
The discussion with John Noyes had
nothing to do with the designation of
a Neotype, it was about when a Neotype is allowed. Apples
and Oranges.
Simply, if this is difficult for you, you should leave it to
those
better able to handle it. The proof of this is that I
have done it
repeatedly, my actions have been cleared pre-publication by
multiple
current and past Commissioners, and it was not difficult
(exacting, yes,
difficult, no).
Mike
On 10/9/2015 4:12 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
__________________________________________________
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