[Taxacom] Honest question
Luis POPA
popaluis at antipa.ro
Wed Dec 5 06:26:21 CST 2018
I cannot see a workable solution to the issue of taxonomy quality.
Defining a species and subsequently describing it do have an amount of
subjectivity in them, so there will always be contradictory opinions.
What I think is VERY important is that young/new scientist considering
entering the taxonomy filed should be very much aware of all this
quicksand situation and make as much as possible an informed decision
whether they want to be in this business or not.
luis
Luis Popa, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
General Director
"Grigore Antipa" National Museum of Natural History
Sos. Kiseleff No. 1
Bucharest 011341
ROMANIA
Tel: 004 021 312 88 26
Fax: 004 021 312 88 63
Mobile: 004 0757 096 442
On 05.12.2018 00:31, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
---
Acest email a fost scanat contra virușilor de către programul antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list