[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