[Taxacom] Honest question
David Campbell
pleuronaia at gmail.com
Wed Dec 5 08:34:18 CST 2018
True; the self-published papers add a difficulty of locating them but are
not necessarily of lower quality than ones published elsewhere.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:31 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
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.
>
>
--
Dr. David Campbell
Associate Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
Box 7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list