[Taxacom] Why Defend the Code?
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Oct 9 22:32:27 CDT 2015
You just can't resist, can you Scott? "Sincerity, I can fake that!" Anyway, Hoser really is an attention seeker, and all this must be really getting him off! I'm not entirely certain of the best way to solve the "Hoser problem", but allow me to comment on the published plea to the ICZN that you have co-authored with a whole bunch of others, including, I see, entomologist Manfred Jach (who has tried in vain for years to stop Dew Makhan from publishing, for similar reasons). The main point which makes me cringe is passages which fundamentally misunderstand zoological nomenclature! For example:
>An example of developing dual nomenclature is Hoser’s attempted resurrection of three rattlesnake genera (Aechmophrys, Caudisona, and Uropsophus) from the synonymy of Crotalus, along with the description of new genera and subgenera<
Resurrection of genera from synonymy is taxonomy, not nomenclature! In fact, it is just a matter of rejecting published synonymies (i.e. if the scientific evidence for a proposed taxonomic change is thought, by the reader, to be insufficient, then the reader has every right to ignore it - this is the difference between science and dogma!) The ICZN has absolutely no mandate to interfere in such matters (i.e. matters of validity as opposed to availability). Anybody is free to reject proposed subjective synonymies, or to accept them as they choose. This has nothing directly to do with the Code or the ICZN. There simply isn't a single "officially valid name" for any taxon, except by default. So, if you are going to go in mob-handed against Hoser, at least get your facts right!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 10/10/15, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Defend the Code?
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: "Taxacom List" <TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, mivie at montana.edu
Received: Saturday, 10 October, 2015, 2:39 PM
Well I am
going to stay out of whatever personal issues are going on
here, I too have been criticized on occasion for my
interpretations of the code. I am not here to argue with
that.
I too agree that our
system of nomenclature is under attack, but not just attack
it is suffering from complacency. One of the reasons I put
in a comment recently with such a large authorship was not
just to impress anyone, I wanted to show that there is
support for the ICZN and its code, from non taxonomists.
Many of the authors of that comment are not taxonomists.
These people also want stability, not the stability we
define in the code, they want the code to stand as it has
for many years as this pillar of how we name our species.
But they cannot tolerate what has been happening
either.
Please do
not jump to the conclusion I am just referring to
herpetology, I am well aware of cases in other groups of
organisms and cited some in fish in my comment. I am aware
this is or has occurred in other organisms
too.
I see several
major issues for the code and in my response to Harvey and
Yanega I tried to outline some. First of all is the code
does need to evolve with the times, I know there are efforts
to come out with a new version, however, it also needs to
evolve within reason. Yes there is no absolute compliance to
the code, we follow it willingly, unfortunately not everyone
follows it the same way. This is in part due to sections
that do need tidying up, their language clarified, we are
all aware of this. I am hopeful that in the revisions of the
code that the confusing or ambiguous language is being
removed.
Another major
issue is how little taxonomy is taught these days, and what
is taught does not cover nomenclature very well if at all. I
try to teach the code, I even write a blog on it, it's
not easy and many biologists do not have a great
understanding of the code. I will say that based on my
experiences of trying to explain the code to many
biologists. My blog has had 3000 views from just under 2000
visitors in the last 12 months. Its no rock band site for
numbers, however, I think that does show there are people
interested and its certainly more than I expected, I receive
many questions about the code since I started writing it
also. This means people still want to comply with the code,
they still want it there. We said in the comment that
Nomenclatural Taxonomy is at a tipping point. If the code is
not presented and followed in a way that is scientifically
and ethically viable then it may not last, which I think is
a tragedy, and there are alternatives on the table. This is
the tipping point, people are considering alternatives. But
they do not want to, they feel they have to.
So I am not trying to add to a
public criticism but we need to stand up for this code and
apply it. We need to make sure all biologists understand it.
Taxonomy needs to be taught again.
Please forgive my moment of
rant.
Cheers,
Scott
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:12
PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
And that
"correspondent in New Zealand" wouldn't be
called Rich, by any chance, would they? You know, that
well-known, objective, humanitarian/philanthopist ...
cough!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 10/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Defend the Code?
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
"Taxacom List" <TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Saturday, 10 October, 2015, 12:28 PM
Stephen,
Well, since that first line
was taken from an email from a correspondent
in New Zealand, and was not my line, and not
attached to any name,
clearly it must not
apply to you, because after all, you have an
honorary something. You see, Stephen, not
everything is about you.
Mike
On
10/9/2015 5:13 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Putting to one side the personal attacks
aimed at me, and the associated false claims (e.g., I do
not
have "no position", I have an honorary
position),
I actually agree with Mike that "our system of
nomenclature is under attack", and that this is a
problem to be solved. I disagree with Mike that the way
to
solve it is to mindlessly defend the Code as it is. The
Code
needs to change in order to solve this problem.
Specifically, it needs to be simplified so that
increasing
numbers of people don't just throw their hands up
in
despair about it and walk away. Claiming that anyone
with
half a brain can easily understand the Code is only going
to
frustrate those perfectly intelligent people who find it
to
be more difficult. Make it easy to do nomenclature, and
the
problem will solve itself.
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 10/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
wrote:
>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Why Defend
the Code?
> To:
"Taxacom List" <TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Saturday, 10
October, 2015, 12:02 PM
>
> This may have been
precipitated by a
> recent
set of events, but it is
> targeted at a broader group
of messages that put me over the
> edge on the
> last one. No individual
person, living or dead, if
> specifically
> referred to below.
>
> I just received a private
email asking why I would waste my
> time
> challenging someone with no
position, no credibility and
> well known as a
> pedant and seeker of
attention?
>
> Why indeed. Because I am an
educator and a
> systematist. It is time
we
> all wake up to a few
things. First, our system of
> nomenclature is under
> attack. Few students are
given a class in its use,
> most are told the
> rules are difficult and
arcane. This is giving rise to
> a movement to
> simply do away with
compliance.
>
> Second, compliance with our
Code is voluntary. There
> is ZERO
> enforcement available. We
are just a thin line from a
> break to anarchy.
>
> Therefore, when someone wants
to, repeatedly, claim the Code
> is poor, is
> difficult, is not well
thought out, or otherwise in need of
> endless
> negative blather, there are
people who read that.
> Hundreds more are
> exposed to this forum than
ever post to it. If such
> negativity comes
> from someone who projects a
facade of expertise, people may
> even believe
> him or her.
>
> I understand the Code is not
perfect, but it does
> work. It does require
> diligence, and takes time
from other activities that may be
> more fun,
> but it is not that hard. We
need to reinforce in the
> minds of our
> peers, and especially the
younger members of our profession,
> that using
> the Code is what is expected,
and it is not something to
> dread. And,
> when mindless attacks are
made claiming it is defective,
> difficult or
> irrelevant, we must defend it
vociferously.
>
> Mike
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> 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.
--
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