[Taxacom] Honest question
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Dec 4 16:31:42 CST 2018
It would be incorrect to think that bad taxonomy is restricted to "self-published papers". The academic peer review system is very far from perfect, with pressure to publish being put on authors from their employing institutions, and an increasing culture against criticising peers, particularly since reviewers also need to get their own stuff published under the same system (and "what goes around, comes around").
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 5/12/18, David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Honest question
To:
Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Wednesday, 5 December, 2018, 11:18 AM
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
_______________________________________________
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