[Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

Fri Sep 2 18:12:21 CDT 2016

Unfortunately, that hope is about as hopeful as perfect peer review! For one thing, the aggregating process tends to keep the bad stuff floating.

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 3/9/16, Paul Kirk <P.Kirk at kew.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases
 To: "Nico Franz" <nico.franz at asu.edu>, "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Received: Saturday, 3 September, 2016, 10:43 AM

 #yiv9556798659 #yiv9556798659 -- P
 {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv9556798659

 Sure, in an ideal world that would happen, but at the end
 of the day ... no pun intended (23:43 here) ... the best we
 can hope for is that the good stuff floats to the top and
 the bad stuff sinks.

 Paul

 From: Stephen Thorpe
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

 Sent: 02 September 2016 23:32

 To: Nico Franz; taxacom; Tony Rees; Paul Kirk

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names
 databases

 Paul,

 In this context, I am thinking of peer review as an
 opportunity for reviewers to catch problems before they are
 published. The fact that reviewers often let crap go through
 unchallenged is another problem altogether.

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------

 On Fri, 2/9/16, Paul Kirk <P.Kirk at kew.org> wrote:

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

  To: "Nico Franz" <nico.franz at asu.edu>,
 "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>,
 "Stephen Thorpe"
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

  Received: Friday, 2 September, 2016, 6:35 PM

  #yiv4125607869 #yiv4125607869 -- P

  {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv4125607869

  OK, let me say it again - peer review is a myth. In
 that

  statement I mean it's never always as perfect as we
 want

  or imagine it to be, because perfection is also a myth.
 If

  an author is interested in 'brownie points' with
 an

  eye on a possible salary increase

   at the end of the year they go for a high impact
 factor

  journal to publish their manuscript, if not they set
 their

  sights lower, and there are journals out there falling
 over

  themselves for manuscripts to publish (never mind the

  quality, feel the width). And

   some journals ask the author for appropriate reviewers
 when

  a manuscript is submitted - isn't that the
 taxonomic

  equivalent of insider trading? I doubt that the WoRMS

  editors change classification on a whim - we are drowning
 in

  published trees right now and

   if the aforementioned editor sees a tree with a twig

  bearing a sequence tagged with a name they know in a
 family

  it's not currently placed in why wouldn't they
 adopt

  that new classification?

  'What we want are experts at tracking and

  making sense of primary taxonomic literature' ...

  one persons 'sence' is another persons

  'nonsense'. And tracking all the recent primary

  literature is impossible for most people because a

  proportion

   of it is behind a pay-wall.

  OK, off my soapbox now and back to editing Index
 Fungorum

  :-)

  From: Taxacom

  <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of

  Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

  Sent: 02 September 2016 02:07

  To: Nico Franz; taxacom; Tony Rees

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names

  databases

  Tony said

  "Also note that the individual sub-compilations
 within

  WoRMS are all individually citable (with appropriate

  authorship), it is merely for the entire collection
 that

  authorship is ascribed to the "WoRMS Editorial

  Board"

  Which is again to confuse a compiler with an author!

  Biodiversity databases are (or should be) compilations
 and

  not creative novelties (created outside of peer review,
 with

  all the subjectivities that entails)! This is independent
 of

  other issues mentioned

   in this thread.

  Stephen

  --------------------------------------------

  On Fri, 2/9/16, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>

  wrote:

   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxonomic names databases

   To: "Nico Franz"
 <nico.franz at asu.edu>,

  "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

   Received: Friday, 2 September, 2016, 12:58 PM

   Hi Nico,

   I do see where you are coming

   from, it's just one point along a spectrum

   where I sit closer to the other end for

   pragmatic reasons ( :) ). Again,

   following

   the example of (let us say, Eschmeyer's Catalog
 of

   Fishes or

   similar), while generally

   accepting his work as a "point of truth" if

  you

   like, that would not stop me from modifying a

   record obtained from there

   for my own system

   if I believed it was necessary (citing appropriate

   alternative sources etc.).

   Look, one can make (and we are making perhaps)

   a separate argument for a

   system which

   natively incorporates either a single, or a variety
 of

   alternative taxonomic viewpoints (the former is

   obviously easier to

   implement than the

   latter). Perhaps the latter more closely reflects the

   practices of active taxonomists, however there

   is also (I would contend) a

   clear desire for

   the latter - e.g. a "consensus

  classification",

   even

   though this may change through time and

   its exact form be argued about -

   for a whole

   class of users of taxonomic data (clients of the

  system)

   who

   need e.g. a management hierarchy by

   which to organise their information,

   preferably also one that will be taken up by

   others (such as let us say,

   APGIII for

   angiosperms). OK, APGIII may not be perfect - and has

   recently

   been superseded by APGIV anyway -

   but at least you say if your [extant]

   angiosperm data are arranged according to

   APGIII, others will know what you

   are

   talking about.

   From the

   "about WoRMS" page you cited:

   -----

   The classification used

   is a ‘compromise’ between established systems and

   recent changes. Its aim is to aid data

   management, rather than suggest any

   taxonomic or phylogenetic opinion on species

   relationships.

   -----

   Perhaps this is selling the system a little

   short - in my experience the

   various sector

   editors do try to incorporate recent changes, at
 least

   where

   these seem to be evidence-based - but

   you will see a tacit acknowledgement

   here of

   the practical value of a single management hierarchy

  here,

   that

   many users appreciate.

   Also note that the individual

   sub-compilations within WoRMS are all

   individually citable (with appropriate

   authorship), it is merely for the

   entire

   collection that authorship is ascribed to the

  "WoRMS

   Editorial

   Board".

   Best - Tony