[Taxacom] Raymond

[JF Mate]

Always a pleasure to hear from you Raymond. It wasn't I who used the
wording but others. If you prefer it we can call it "the Hoser incident".
The point is the same though, the difference between code-compliance and
perceived "quality". You are welcome to share your thoughts on the topic
but if you are not going to start a new one may I suggest a separate
thread?

Best regards

Jason

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021, 18:01 Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman, <
viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:

> Jason,
> baseless insults and false claims do your cause no good.
> No matter how many times you repeat a lie (Hoser is a taxonomic vandal),
> it will remain just that .... a lie.
> Now speaking feaces, I have it on good authority, esteemed members of the
> QM in Brisbane are over your unscientific antics, including an attempt to
> knock off works of others, but I'll keep the detail off this list to save
> you the embarrassment.
> All the best
> Raymond Hoser
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of JF Mate
> via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 13 February 2021 6:26 PM
> *To:* Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] General call to collaboration
>
> Thanks George,
>
>
> I think it is a good idea that the subject be discussed calmly, but I
> wonder if it is possible now. This topic is not really new, similar themes
> pop up every other year, and the disagreements are never resolved.
>
> As others have said, the problem is nuanced. Carlos is focused purely on
> the Code-compliance of Sharkey´s and Mieirotto´s papers, but in my limited
> understading of the Code, they are compliant, or at least more so than
> clear cases of vandalism like Hoser or Pic, and if they are acceptable then
> so are theirs. The idea the  Code is the ultimate arbiter of scientific
> quality crops frequently (photos as types, Hoser, names and conservation,
> etc) enough that you´d think that by now we would have come to grips with
> the fact that it is just a set of vaguish rules to standardize nomenclature
> and provide a minimum of rigour to descriptions. Since most of the
> Taxacomers think the same, I think the subject is mostly settled, though
> the topic of what constitutes a type needs updating.
>
> A separate and distinct point is the practical and philosophical
> perspective of the papers, in particular if the descriptions are
> sufficiently “diagnostic” to be useful, to which I would argue, not
> quite.There is no doubt that barcoding is here to stay and that it is an
> important tool, but the point that Sharkey et al are making (while not
> being true to their message) is that it be the only tool. They make this
> point quite clearly when they claim that “In light of the evidence
> presented above, and much more like it in the literature, it seems absurd
> to us that manyin the taxasphere complain about barcode-based species
> concepts, yet readily accept delineations based solely on morphology.”It is
> this claim that I take issue with and their article has convinced me
> further that their approach is not really what it claims to be.
>
> In my mind a barcode (BC) is just another line of evidence in support of a
> species´ hypothesis and it needs to be contrasted within the context of
> previous hypotheses. Since the vast majority of descriptions are based on
> morphology, it is necessary for the description to be sufficient to allow
> others to compare with previous ones as well as with future data. This
> doesn´t mean that a description must be exhaustive or written, but it
> should provide all the available data to allow the comparison to be made.
> Morphological descriptions need not be word descriptions but they need to
> at least provide sufficient images of high enough quality for the
> comparison to be made. In this regard both papers fall short.
>
> I am not a braconid expert but a quick examination of papers shows that
> detailed images of the head(frontal), thorax (side and dorsal), abdomen
> (side and dorsal), wings and back legs are the least you need (genitalia
> don´t seem to feature in the braconid papers I have looked at but I would
> say that they are the most important character in most insect species in
> general). Mieirotto et al´s images are both poor and insufficient and
> though Sharkey et al´s (2021) first two figures were a big improvement,
> alas it was not followed in the rest of the paper. If we are doing away
> with worded descriptions (or at least limited to diagnostic features) in
> order to stream descriptions, then the onus should be on the images.
> Considering the number of authors and the ease with which imaging can be
> done nowadays, I can´t understand why they did such a poor job.
>
> Another criticism regarding their “barcode-defined speciesconcept” is that
> it is nothing of the sort, but rather a post hoc construct that ejects
> phenotype in the final stage and presents the BC as the complete picture.
> When they compare the accuracy of BCs against morphology in Alabagrus
> (suggesting accuracy of 60% for the latter) it is only because they used
> other phenotypic data (host use) to boost the refine the BINs. What is the
> accuracy of morphology combined with ecology? We don´t know, but if
> morphology and host use had been used in conjunction, it is likely that the
> accuracy of the former would have also been significantly boosted and it
> only demonstrates that descriptions work best when all data is combined.
>
> They seem to acknowledge as much since all their examples are a combination
> of phenotypic and genetic data, yet at the end they claim that “As a final
> illustration of how ineffective morphology is to differentiate braconid
> species, we ... tested their ability to differentiate the species of
> Lytopylus before including COI and hostdata. They had error rates of 62%
> and 54%, respectively. ... In contrast, the molecular species concepts
> matched with the final species delimitations, which were also based on host
> data, at 96.6%.”This simply demonstrates that the best approach is a
> combination of all data, including ecology, in descriptions, not that
> barcode based descriptions are the way to go. Furthermore, they also fail
> to consider that feedback between BCs and morphology is a two-way street.
>
> In the end the problem I have with the paper is that it is purporting to be
> something that it isn´t and sending a dangerous and inaccurate message that
> BCs are all that you need, in spite of their insistence that “...we are not
> proposing that comprehensive revisions that include keys and morphological
> diagnoses be abandoned.” Considering the high cost of museum storage,
> taxonomist training, etc, and that “...old museum specimens have little
> value, because of the enormous cost in time and budgets to examine and
> identify them morphologically,…” one has to wonder if they are not buying
> the rope or at least chipping in.
>
> Finally, telling other taxonomists that “...we view barcode-based
> descriptions as a first pass in an iterative approach to solve the
> taxonomic impediment…, if a taxonomist wishes to integrate these elements
> to Zelomorpha or any of the taxa that we review below they will have a
> great starting point (and resources).” fails to understand that taxonomists
> are people and that though they largely work for their own applause, they
> are still human.
>
> Considering that the cost of high quality imaging has plunged, that digital
> media provides limitless possibilities for incorporating data in the form
> of images and video to descriptions, it is strange that the debate should
> be based on straw men instead of finding integrative approaches that work
> into the future but at the same way are rooted in the past. Disruption
> shouldn´t mean burning the library.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 05:07, George Sangster via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> Two days ago, Carlos wrote:
> > Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschriftand and ZooKeys. This lack of logic is
> > restricted to Pensoft journals.
> > I wonder who could profit the most from a pipeline like this, overriding
> > all need to diagnose the new taxa from the previous taxa:
> > We have all the elements to streamline an output of thousands of new
> names
> > per month: 1) Environmental samples. 2) Metabarcoding. 3) Machines
> > assembling the data as data papers and assigning names as arbitrary
> > combinations of letters. 4) Machines being the name authors, so that
> there
> > is no one to blame. 5) Compact, inexpensive storage of type specimens,
> now
> > in Eppendorfs (molecules are "parts of animals"). It is a Code-compliant
> > and technologically possible scenario.
> > Well, definitely for-profit publishers have the most to win from a steady
> > input of hundreds and even thousands of pages per month. I don't think
> that
> > stopping illogical novelty claims is among their interests.
>
> I have two comments and a suggestion.
>
> First, the editorial process at ZooKeys, including the decision to
> accept or reject a manuscript, is carried out by the subject editors.
> The decision to publish a manuscript is based on scientific grounds, not
> impact factors or (the author's ability to pay) page fees. The editorial
> process is entirely independent from the commercial aspects of
> publishing the journal. I suppose you agree with me that this is how it
> should be.
>
> Second, you might be interested to read the Criteria for publication
> of new species descriptions in ZooKeys*.*
> https://zookeys.pensoft.net/about#TaxonomicTreatments
>
> It was published in January and was the result of multiple rounds of
> consultation among the subject editors of ZooKeys. It was initiated by
> the publisher/owner.
>
> I'd be very interested to learn if we have overlooked anything important.
>
> Instead of going to war, and battling (seemingly) different opinions,
> perhaps we as a group can work towards a universal set of
> recommendations ("best practices") for species descriptions. For
> instance, while publishing a new species with an illustration of a live
> animal as its type specimen (i.e. without a vouchered type specimen) can
> be acceptable under the ICZN, it is not generally a good idea to do so.
> So let's specify what other things a taxonomist must do to make such a
> description acceptable for us. Same with DNA diagnoses. These are
> acceptable (i.e. not explicitly unacceptable) under the ICZN, but they
> are far from ideal, so what hoops should a taxonomist jump through to
> make such a description acceptable? This might turn into a nice
> multi-author paper, useful for authors, reviewers, journal editors and
> teachers. In medicine, it is common to have Standard Operating
> Procedures, and some are adopted by 100s of journals (e.g.
> http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/). I suggest we try this approach
> in taxonomy. (I am aware of Judith Winston's 1999 book.)
>
> Have a nice weekend.
>
> All the best,
> George
>
> Dr George Sangster
> Subject Editor Aves, Zookeys
> Naturalis Biodiversity Center
> Leiden, the Netherlands
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 05:07, George Sangster via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > Two days ago, Carlos wrote:
> > > Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschriftand and ZooKeys. This lack of logic
> is
> > > restricted to Pensoft journals.
> > > I wonder who could profit the most from a pipeline like this,
> overriding
> > > all need to diagnose the new taxa from the previous taxa:
> > > We have all the elements to streamline an output of thousands of new
> > names
> > > per month: 1) Environmental samples. 2) Metabarcoding. 3) Machines
> > > assembling the data as data papers and assigning names as arbitrary
> > > combinations of letters. 4) Machines being the name authors, so that
> > there
> > > is no one to blame. 5) Compact, inexpensive storage of type specimens,
> > now
> > > in Eppendorfs (molecules are "parts of animals"). It is a
> Code-compliant
> > > and technologically possible scenario.
> > > Well, definitely for-profit publishers have the most to win from a
> steady
> > > input of hundreds and even thousands of pages per month. I don't think
> > that
> > > stopping illogical novelty claims is among their interests.
> >
> > I have two comments and a suggestion.
> >
> > First, the editorial process at ZooKeys, including the decision to
> > accept or reject a manuscript, is carried out by the subject editors.
> > The decision to publish a manuscript is based on scientific grounds, not
> > impact factors or (the author's ability to pay) page fees. The editorial
> > process is entirely independent from the commercial aspects of
> > publishing the journal. I suppose you agree with me that this is how it
> > should be.
> >
> > Second, you might be interested to read the Criteria for publication
> > of new species descriptions in ZooKeys*.*
> > https://zookeys.pensoft.net/about#TaxonomicTreatments
> >
> > It was published in January and was the result of multiple rounds of
> > consultation among the subject editors of ZooKeys. It was initiated by
> > the publisher/owner.
> >
> > I'd be very interested to learn if we have overlooked anything important.
> >
> > Instead of going to war, and battling (seemingly) different opinions,
> > perhaps we as a group can work towards a universal set of
> > recommendations ("best practices") for species descriptions. For
> > instance, while publishing a new species with an illustration of a live
> > animal as its type specimen (i.e. without a vouchered type specimen) can
> > be acceptable under the ICZN, it is not generally a good idea to do so.
> > So let's specify what other things a taxonomist must do to make such a
> > description acceptable for us. Same with DNA diagnoses. These are
> > acceptable (i.e. not explicitly unacceptable) under the ICZN, but they
> > are far from ideal, so what hoops should a taxonomist jump through to
> > make such a description acceptable? This might turn into a nice
> > multi-author paper, useful for authors, reviewers, journal editors and
> > teachers. In medicine, it is common to have Standard Operating
> > Procedures, and some are adopted by 100s of journals (e.g.
> > http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/). I suggest we try this approach
> > in taxonomy. (I am aware of Judith Winston's 1999 book.)
> >
> > Have a nice weekend.
> >
> > All the best,
> > George
> >
> > Dr George Sangster
> > Subject Editor Aves, Zookeys
> > Naturalis Biodiversity Center
> > Leiden, the Netherlands
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>