[Taxacom] Honest question

Tue Dec 4 16:09:30 CST 2018

Dear Sergio,

I will provide my answers because you explicitly mention the ICZN, but I suppose your questions are equally valid in relation to other organisms.

>>> why do I now have to halt my peer review publication ...
You don't. I may not get your point here, but I see nothing that will prevent you from listing the new species as an unrecognized species in genus B and go on with your work. I do realise that poorly executed taxonomy may be a considerable burden for those of us who have to clean up the mess. It has always been like that, and I suppose this is the onus we have to bear.

>>> Why should I [...] move our taxonomic knowledge of  the group further
For my own part I find it deeply fascinating to bring forth new taxonomic knowledge about that part of the planetary biota that I work on.

>>> when I feel like the  field (ICZN) shows no support for  this sort of methodical work?
Could you elaborate on why you have this feeling? 
Also, be careful with how you define "the field", as your focus is mostly on taxonomy, while the ICZN deals exclusively with nomenclature. The Commission certainly is compassionate and supportive about quality in taxonomy, but which particular "support" would you find appropriate for the ICZN to provide? 

>>> shouldn't the rules support accuracy in detriment of shoddy work?
This is often under debate. The provisions and recommendations of the Code are deliberately not restricting the freedom of taxonomic thought or actions. The Code explicitly states that it has: 
"one fundamental aim, which is to provide the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names of animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify animals according to taxonomic judgments". 

In short, the Code does not and should not constrain or limit taxonomists to make taxonomic judgments.
We have carefully written the Code to give directions about quality, although this is mostly in terms of recommendations, which are not part of the legislative text. Also, by defining certain requirements -- see for example what is required for a valid designation of a neotype -- we hope to indirectly increase 'quality decisions'.

>>> What regulations are there in the ICZN to protect young taxonomists work 
The Code is about nomenclature and not about taxonomy as a (threatened) scientific discipline.

>>> ... and incentivise quality/accurate/comprehensive  taxonomic work?
It is important to see the Code as a legislative text. Such texts rarely contain incentives.
It is important to realise, that regulations, directives, guidelines or prescriptions on taxonomy must come from other bodies than the ICZN. We take responsibility for the legislation relating to the naming of animals.

/Thomas Pape

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: 4. december 2018 21:23
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Sergio Henriques <henriquesbio at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Honest question

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.

_______________________________________________
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.