[Taxacom] Honest question

Tue Dec 4 16:26:30 CST 2018

Let's say it as it is, shall we? Some taxonomists really want to restrict the freedoms of other taxonomists who they consider (rightly or wrongly) to be inferior/inconvenient, and they resent the ICZN for not suppressing the nomenclatural availability of these inferior/inconvenient others (e.g. Hoser). However, they do not seem to (want to?) grasp the problem that it is almost impossible to suppress the work of some people in a way that doesn't leave it up to subjective opinion possibly biased by territoriality, etc., and that poor quality taxonomy results from many different sources, e.g. taxonomists working for profit hungry corporate institutions operating on external funding, whoare under pressure to churn out lots of publications very quickly.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 5/12/18, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Honest question
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Sergio Henriques" <henriquesbio at gmail.com>
 Received: Wednesday, 5 December, 2018, 11:09 AM

 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.