Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Wed Aug 30 12:36:51 CDT 2023
This is a really great discussion, I think -- and exactly the one that I think the field of taxonomy needs right now. It's rare that the signal:noise ratio on Taxacom is as high as it is on this thread! Kudos to all who have chimed in so far, on both sides of the debate. I'm tempted to ramble on as I often do on such things, but no one on this list (myself included) has the time for that. So just a few comments:
As a Commissioner, I *completely* agree with my fellow commissioners who have chimed in on this (Thomas and Doug). I'll add that there are two different discussions along these lines, which sometimes get conflated:
1) What are the *existing* rules (i.e., Code-4) in terms of what "counts" as a proper " description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon"?
2) What *should* the rules be going forward (i.e., Code-5)?
BOTH of these are relevant, especially as the Commission is preparing a draft of the next Code which will be subjected to a minimum of 1-year public commentary. Those of you who subscribe to the ICZN list may have noticed my *painfully* long and pedantic post recently on the topic of Art. 13.1.1 (from which the above quoted passage is taken), so I will NOT repeat that here (and will apologize to those who wasted the better part of what would have been a productive day reading it). But my point here is that these are different topics of discussion. My personal feeling is that the existing rules are sufficiently ambiguous that the interests of nomenclatural stability are best served with a very broad (=liberal) interpretation of the rules, erring on the side of "assume it's available unless there is an explicit and unambiguous failure to fulfill the Code requirement).
The more interesting question, I think, is the one being discussed in this thread. And that boils down to: "What criteria should be established in Code-5 for ensuring (or at least encouraging) taxonomic 'quality control' when proposing new available scientific names of animals?" Anyone who thinks the answer is obvious simply doesn't understand the nature of the problem, and the broader implications of how that question is answered.
And this is why I think it's so important that this community (not just Taxacom, but the entire taxonomic community) engage in this discussion *now*, in *advance* of the release of the draft Code-5. I say this for two reasons: First, because *now* is the time that the new Code is being drafted, and the Commissioners *are* listening to these discussions! As Thomas and Francisco Welter-Schultes and others have noted, the sentiments expressed by practicing taxonomists on this and other forums (fora?) *are* influencing the nature of that draft Code. And second, having these discussions now definitely will help prime the conversations that will come later, when the draft new Code is open to public commentary.
Crap. I really, really, wanted to keep this short (too late), but I had some other comments to add. Nope... not gonna do it. I'll end it here. Apologies for lowering the signal:noise ratio...
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 lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Marko
> Mutanen via Taxacom
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:05 AM
> To: Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>; taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829
>
> Precisely, Mike!
>
> Excellent points by Rod and Thomas too!
>
> It is so easy to provide criticism instead of solutions. The fact is that
> (traditional) taxonomy is facing a serious crisis as it cannot provide credible
> solutions to the taxonomic impediment. The approach designed by Sharkey
> and colleagues has huge potential to provide an escape from this dead-end.
> Their approach may not have seen full maturation yet, but when was any
> revolutionary idea fully mature at birth? It already works very well. Criticism
> has had all focus on minor issues such as newly created synonyms (so rarely
> created otherwise...) and completely has completely ignored the huge
> benefits of the approach, both practical and conceptual.
>
> We taxonomists have started describing species of this planet from the
> easiest end. After ca 270 years of hard work, perhaps 95-99% are left. They
> are gall midges, Nematods, parasitic wasps, microfungi etc. Groups that each
> may contain tens of thousands or even over a million species. As more
> species are described in any of such megadiverse groups, the number of
> required comparisons increases exponentially, making it all finally impossible
> to manage. Who believes that one day we will have a morphological key for
> one million gall midge species? I don't. But I believe that one day all or most
> of them are described and named, and that then they can easily be identified
> by their DNA. Elucidation of their life histories and connections to other
> species becomes straightforward too. The future of taxonomy looks bright if
> we only would let the field to flourish. The future of taxonomy is in DNA and
> genomics.
>
> I hope that taxonomic community would recognize that for the survival of
> the field, we must find better solutions to the above-mentioned problems
> and stop making war. Taxonomy has been poorly funded largely because it
> hasn't been able to provide efficient solutions. Sharkey et al. have made a
> revolutionary and feasible proposal, and they would deserve much more
> appreciation by their peers than what we thus far have seen.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Marko Mutanen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Michael A.
> Ivie via Taxacom
> Sent: keskiviikko 30. elokuuta 2023 19.07
> To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829
>
> While I am not a convert, can we restart this conversation by recognizing we
> have a problem? I have discovered (collected and
> curated) a couple to several thousand new species of beetles and other
> things in my career, but have managed to describe a couple dozen, and
> colleagues have added a couple dozen more. I suspect I am pretty
> representative of 69 year old systematists with an active field program. If our
> goal is to distinguish and share information of the type in this new paper,
> where they describe "158 new species and host records for 129 species," the
> approach those who work like I do is simply not going to work. I will die with
> thousands of new species, their associations and characteristics still hidden
> from the people of the tropical countries where I obtained them. Don't we
> have to discuss how our current system is failing to achieve our goals? Isn't
> Sharkey et al challenging us to face this? If we don't want to follow their
> path, don't we have to propose something equally effective rather than just
> blast them for not doing it our (admittingly failing) way? I suggest that for
> ever criticism, an alternative be proposed.
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For list
> information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf100e7d5b37446eee44608dba97fb535%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290138193720022%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6stF7wVN3AoeYAz2%2FT%2FH8VBM%2F7JAGFJ4xaBct%2BS7PFo%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list