[Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early view" example...

Wed May 12 05:46:57 CDT 2021

Hi Stephen,

Just on one point: Your assumption is not entirely in error, that the 
Commission is trying to reduce workload. But this applies to different 
items, it is not related to this context. Let me try to put in some more 
words the (exactly) same thoughts Rich has just posted.
In such contexts as you have in mind we do not have much workload 
provoked by taxonomists asking us for solving problems. Sometimes we get 
applications with untenable interpretations of Code provisions, and we 
intend to correct issues like incorrect authorships and related data in 
the Opinions. We can cope with that, this would not be a rseason for us 
to modify the Code.

If we intend to propose a Code that is more rigorous in some points, 
this is because we have been asked in the past years by members of the 
community to develop something. They have been asking us in the 
intention to reduce their own workload. The nomenclatural rules were 
developed more than 100 years ago for taxonomists to facilitate 
communication, They simply have to extract the correct name by appling 
simple and clear rules, without the need for time consuming debates in 
the community.
In the past years we have one new development: the information of how 
Code rules are traditionally applied, gets increasingly lost with 
ongoing cuts in funding of taxonomic research. We observe gaps between 
the old generations of scientists and young scientists, where young 
taxonomists do not learn any more the details of how the Code was 
traditionally interpreted in their field. They can consult the Code, 
which is online, but in some points they would not know how to apply it.

Another aspect is that an increasing number of users of zoological names 
cover more than one restricted animal group. In the past 200 years we 
had a trend towards more specialization (is this English?), taxonomists 
tended to work in a narrowly restricted taxonomic frame. In Linnean 
times zoologists covered all animal groups, later they specialized to 
concentrate on insects, later on Coleoptera, later on subgroups within 
Coleoptera. Those experts determined which names to recognize and to 
use. Today we observe a trend backwards in who would determine the 
correct name.
Providers of databases, or even Wikipedia authors covering a broad 
variety of animals, prefer rules they can apply to all animals. The old 
literature is online, so in cases of dispute everyone can extract the 
correct name by consulting the original source and the Code. In such a 
situation it is outdated that every animal group has their own experts 
who, as you observe, apply the Code subjectively following their own 
traditions.

There will be a one-year public review period for the Code-5 draft and 
we would welcome suggestions.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 12.05.2021 um 01:57 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
>   Addressing this issue again in general terms, the prospects for a logically watertight system of nomenclature (i.e. one and only one correct answer for any scenario) are tiny and it would add vastly more complexity without much gain. The traditional approach is simply to allow a little bit of slack (ambiguity/subjectivity), but if an actual problem (dispute) arises, then refer it to the Commission for a ruling. This has worked reasonably well in the past, but I suspect that the Commission is now trying to minimise the amount of work that it has to do, so that may be a reason for a more rigorous Code? Another factor might be the rise of computer databases which don't handle ambiguity/subjectivity very well and which lead to a sort of "you must work out every last detail" approach. For example, we simply don't need to know the exact publication dates for most names, but if your database has a field for this, then it seems like it needs to be filled in across the board!Stephen
>      On Wednesday, 12 May 2021, 08:22:01 am NZST, Richard Pyle via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>   
>   Thanks, Francisco -- and yes I agree that there are two conflated issues; namely:
> 1) When to treat two separate documents as representing the "same" work, vs. "different" works; and
> 2) When to treat two separate usages of a same or similarly-spelled name as the "same" name or as "different" names (e.g., homonyms).
> 
> I conflated the two in my post where I suggested an example of a same or similar name proposed as new in two separate "Editions" of a book with the same title might be regarded as homonyms.  I see now that example only confused the discussion.  I think both issues are important, and I would like to see a move towards harmonization of the Codes on both issues.  Part of my interest in this is understanding the phycological/mycological/botanical approach in terms of whether the ambiguities have been solved explicitly, or whether the ambiguity exists but is not seen as problematic.  There seems to be some element of both in play.
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
> Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> BishopMuseum.org
> Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
>> Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:10 AM
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early
>> view" example...
>>
>> Rich,
>> just to respond on that detail you posted.
>>
>> Am 10.05.2021 um 20:55 schrieb Richard Pyle via Taxacom:
>>
>>    > At the former end of the spectrum (two different Editions of the "same"
>> book), if an author proposes/establishes a new taxon name within the first
>> Edition (Aus bus sp. nov.), and then includes the same (or even modified)
>> description and same name in the Second edition (including an explicit
>> indication of "sp. nov."), I suppose most taxonomists would treat the name
>> included in the second Edition as a homonym (i.e., distinct proposal for a
>> new name identical to an existing name from a previous work).
>>
>> I did not answer immediately because I thought the statement deviated from
>> the initial question. But now I see now that this question has been discussed
>> further on.
>>
>> A homonym is by definition a separately available name.
>>
>> I agree with Thomas that such a name is not necessarily new under the Code,
>> just because of a declaration "new". Such a declaration, even if intentional,
>> can be in error. Even if combined with a type designation different from the
>> original type, both the declaration "new" and the type designation can be in
>> error. This depends on the individual case.
>>
>> We need to address this in Code-5, however not in the Chapter on
>> publication (where the early view question should be placed), but on the
>> Chapter on availability of names and nomenclatural acts, and there in a new
>> set of provisions on subsequent usages. These are two separate debates.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Francisco
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>    
> 