[Taxacom] Honest question

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Dec 4 14:22:32 CST 2018


Honest answer: The issue is complex, but a partial answer is that, while it may be easy to distinguish best practice from worst practice (of the kind you describe), there is a continuum in between and so, in practice, it is impossible to make a robust good science/bad science distinction that is workable and fair to everyone. Bad science often comes disguised as "good science", i.e. in peer reviewed journals, backed up by phylogenetic analysis, DNA, etc., etc., but with everyone too busy to pick through details, bad science (both deliberate misrepresentation and just sloppy mistakes) can and does easily get published in even the most reputable journals.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 5/12/18, Sergio Henriques <henriquesbio at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: [Taxacom] Honest question
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Wednesday, 5 December, 2018, 5:26 AM
 
 Dear all:
 
 I missed earlier debates on the topic
 (I am aware of a "recent" nature news
 <https://www.nature.com/news/taxonomy-anarchy-hampers-conservation-1.22064>
 and the "Taxonomy based on science is
 necessary for global conservation
 <https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075>"
 response) but what happens when
 taxonomy isn't based on science?
 
 Hypothetical example: If someone comes
 to a protected area on "vacation",
 collects with no permits, gets a couple
 of specimens, self-publishes (no
 peer review) a new species in genus "A"
 with 2 sp., instead of the genus
 "B" with 200 sp. (where everyone can
 easily recognise it belongs to),
 apparently to purposely bypass a
 cumbersome revision/explanation and avoid
 justifying the validity of their
 description.
 Then why do I now have to halt my peer
 review publication, have the burden
 to revise further species in a non
 related genus A, accept their species
 name, lose my chance to set the species
 epithet as an honorific, wasting
 all the resources used to visit
 museums, collecting new material,  etc...
 Just to publish a genus reassignment
 paper?
 Off course my publication is still
 relevant, I made a key to both males and
 females, spent endless hours on range
 mapping, validating or refuting
 synonyms, etc..
 But as a young taxonomist: Why do a
 proper revision at all? Why should I
 publish my work in peer review journals
 and move our taxonomic knowledge of
 the group further, when I feel like the
 field (ICZN) shows no support for
 this sort of methodical work?
 
 Apologies for turning this into a rant,
 but I believe I'm perhaps offering
 a new angle on an already well known
 problem, which I would phase as:
 Why should young biologists become
 taxonomist at all?
 It's clearly not because of the money,
 nor because it's popular or provides
 any sort of professional stability for
 our future. I think young
 taxonomists do it because we care, both
 for the groups we study and for
 carrying the legacy of previous workers
 onwards.
 I know the role of the code isn't to
 police taxonomy but to provide a
 framework of rules do it accurately,
 but shouldn't the rules support
 accuracy in detriment of shoddy
 work?  What regulations are there in the
 ICZN to protect young taxonomists work
 and incentivise
 quality/accurate/comprehensive
 taxonomic work?
 
 Honest question, I really want to know.
 Although I am also happy to hear
 from those who think that encouraging
 quality taxonomic work and supporting
 young taxonomists isn't something we
 need to do, or that it isn't something
 ICZN should encourage.
 I am aware of the Raymond Hoser
 <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/taxonomic-vandalism-and-hoser/>
 issue,
 the cyber nomenclaturalists and CESA
 itch
 <http://216.92.145.68/zootaxa/2011/f/zt02933p064.pdf>
 and their "critics
 <http://cerambycids.com/aazn/publications/Nemesio_2011.pdf>",
 as well as
 ICZN position on it. But when facing a
 taxonomy crisis
 <https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/systematics-and-taxonomy-in-crisis-house-of-lords-report/>,
 I haven't read about the impact of bad
 taxonomy in disincentivising young
 taxonomists and encouraging lower
 publication standards, and would welcome
 your insights on this.
 
 All the best
 S.
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
 to: 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
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
 Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 You can reach the person managing the
 list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 
 Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
 Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list