[Taxacom] Honest question

Tue Dec 4 16:18:22 CST 2018

Another challenge is retroactive results of establishing a standard.  Some
descriptions from the 1700's and 1800's are great and some are not.  A new
rule can be passed establishing stricter standards, but we have to decide
what date the standards apply to - is it just going forward, or do we set a
date in the past, or what?  I can certainly think of several authors whom I
sometimes wish could be put onto a rejected list analogous to the list of
rejected works.  It would save the trouble of checking through
self-published papers for possibly valid names, but I can also think of
problems that would arise.

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:09 PM Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
Associate Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
Box 7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017