Taxacom: The practice of Zoologica Scripta

Sat Feb 10 20:51:54 CST 2024

 The type specimen is only a last resort if the taxonomic treatment (original description) is inadequate, which it shouldn't be. It is very possible for the type specimen to be useless for identification purposes, if it is lost or damaged or degrades because it is impossible to preserve adequately. The primary source for identification should never be the type specimen, but the original description and illustrations. If too much emphasis is put on the type specimen, then some taxonomists will not bother to make much of an effort to make the original description and illustrations accurate and believe me, this does happen! Also, curational errors can occur down the track, resulting in the type labels ending up on the wrong specimen. In such cases, the type specimen is not necessarily to be considered the specimen which bears the type labels, not if it is inconsistent with the original description.
Stephen
    On Sunday, 11 February 2024 at 02:56:24 pm NZDT, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:  

 Thomas wrote: What makes it so difficult is that nomenclature and taxonomy overlap in one crucial point: the name-bearing type. 

I think you could tease this out. That meta data that is important for knowing you have the type be deemed nomenclatural data, ie museum number, which museum, type locality, collection date, collector, possibly a few others that can be discussed and may differ a little between some groups of taxa. Declare these (in the code) as nomenclatural data and hence it must be preserved with the nomenclatural act, ie published, archived and registered. To be fair in many descriptions this is effectively already done just not stated as such.
Everything else about the type is taxonomic data and hence can be discussed as needed per the taxonomic reviews using it. The most important thing is to be able to identify the type and I am not meaning to some taxa, I am meaning identify it is the type for a particular name. It is hence the owner of that name so the info required nomenclaturally is the identification of the type. Info needed to stick it in a tree and decide who its related to is all taxonomic.
Cheers Scott

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 6:21 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

 Nevertheless, the bigger issue is whether a name unavailable on a technicality should still be used as if it were available, in the absence of an alternative name. I say yes. One reason is that many names which are being used are actually unavailable on unnoticed technicalities* (e.g. lack of a specified archive for the journal record used for ZooBank preregistration, something which is very rarely checked properly). So, we just use names and, if the are unavailable on a technicality, we just leave it to other people to sort out (the few people who pay that much attention to nomenclature). Then, if the problem gets sorted out sensibly, we can simply continue to use the name as if nothing had happened. But then, why bother "fixing" the problem if it makes no difference to usage anyway? At any rate, the code should be rewritten so that there are very few ways that names can fail to be available by mistake and it is obvious when it happens.
Again, a requirement to upload treatments of new taxa to an online archive might be the best approach, so that a successfully uploaded treatment by definition makes the name available (apart from in cases of deliberate fraud), independently of publication elsewhere.
The only reason why a name should be considered to be unavailable is if there is some actual problem in applying the name to a species. Remember that there is no actual requirement to archive, only to specify an archive. Therefore, the fact that supplementary appendices cannot be adequately archived is not a real problem, since the main part of the work might not get archived anyway! If the treatment does vanish, never having been archived, *then* the name can be deemed unavailable, but there is no point considering it to be unavailable just because it *might* vanish in future.
*A good example where availability is messy is Mnesarchella dugdalei Gibbs, 2019. The author forgot to specify the type repository in the treatment itself (p. 55, something only I have seemed to notice!), but, in an appendix (p. 64), they list material with the primary type written in bold with a specified repository (NZAC). My opinion is that this appendix listing saves the day, even though it is remote from the treatment, within the same work.
Stephen
    On Sunday, 11 February 2024 at 07:58:42 am NZDT, Thomas Pape via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:  

 >>> the actual nomenclatural and taxonomic acts must be in the paper.
Plus those data that must be in ZooBank, thereby creating a slope that some would say has already started to become slippery …

/Thomas

From: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
Sent: 10. februar 2024 19:39
To: Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Cc: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>; taxacom at lists.ku.edu
Subject: Re: Taxacom: The practice of Zoologica Scripta

To me one of the issues with supp info is that although the actual paper is fixed (at least eventually) there is not a general requirement for the supplementary data to be so. It can be updated on many journals as required, even if it's a pdf/A by replacing it. Hence to me any requirement for availability of a name must be in the actual paper to me. I do not mind if supporting data is in the supplementary files but the actual nomenclatural and taxonomic acts must be in the paper.

Cheers Scott

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 3:05 PM Frank T. Krell via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>> wrote:
Even if the availability is independent from publication, the information about the new taxon will still vanish at some point if published in electronic supplements. It would only make sense if ZooBank archived the original publication, wouldn't it?
Frank

Dr. Frank-Thorsten Krell

Senior Curator of Entomology, Editor-in-Chief
Commissioner and Councillor, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Department of Zoology
Denver Museum of Nature & Science
2001 Colorado Blvd
Denver, Colorado 80205-5798, U.S.A.
Frank.krell at dmns.org<mailto:Frank.krell at dmns.org>
Phone 303.370.8244
Fax 303.331.6492
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmns.org%2Fscience%2Fzoology%2Fstaff%2Ffrank-krell%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168186161%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uklWxfbF5LKXYSVLEtvcF6zbd60vCx7o5ZDUS%2BoZork%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmns.org%2Fscience%2Fzoology%2Fstaff%2Ffrank-krell%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168186161%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uklWxfbF5LKXYSVLEtvcF6zbd60vCx7o5ZDUS%2BoZork%3D&reserved=0>

Wild Color: Delve into the color spectrum in “Wild Color” to explore the brightest, boldest and most delightful colors of the rainbow – and take amazing, eye-catching photos!

Color Salvaje: Sumérgete en el espectro cromático en "Color Salvaje" para explorar los colores más brillantes, atrevidos y fascinantes del arco iris... ¡y toma fotos asombrosas y llamativas!

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu>> On Behalf Of Thomas Pape via Taxacom
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 9:19 AM
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: The practice of Zoologica Scripta

Supplementary Materials associated with scientific publications issued electronically is a highly relevant issue, and I was surprised to read the disclaimer. Note that the journal has Author Guidelines including how to propose new nominal taxa, but this part of their guidelines has probably not been peer reviewed by a person well-versed in zoological nomenclature.

The ICZN is currently going through the Code, sentence by sentence, in order to provide an extensively updated proposal for a fifth edition, which will be disseminated widely for a one-year public review period. This cannot be done fast, but we make progress and will hopefully have something to present in a year's time from now.

The issue of Supplementary Materials will be discussed within the Commission in the near future, and I trust that we will come to a decision on (1) how to interpret Supplementary Materials under the current Code, and (2) what to propose for the next edition of the Code.

There are several issues involved under (1), including whether or not supplementary files are part of the 'work' (note that also traditional paper-based books can be "issued in parts").
In the present case, the file providing the description, type fixation, and type depository is a Word file, which unambiguously is *not* acceptable for being considered as published in the sense of zoological nomenclature.

I should like to cite (once again), from the Introduction to our current Code from 1999, where W.D.L. Ride anticipated that “new information systems” would become a challenge to how we disseminate nomenclatural data and establish nomenclatural availability, and he suggested that “the solution will not lie in patching up a definition of publication but, rather, in scrapping it and finding a means of replacing ‘publication’ as a primary determinant of availability”.

Amazing foresight!

/Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu>> On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom
Sent: 10. februar 2024 05:58
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>; Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz<mailto:gread at actrix.gen.nz>>; Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org<mailto:Frank.Krell at dmns.org>>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: The practice of Zoologica Scripta

 Perhaps a more sensible approach would be for the ICZN to maintain a publicly accessible database of taxonomic treatments involving new names, something along the lines of Plazi Treatment Bank. Then a new name could be available from the databased treatment, independently of publication elsewhere. I know this idea has been considered, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, possibly because authors wouldn't get citation or impact credits from uploading such treatments, so they might not bother! "The system" is what is keeping all this messy.
Stephen
    On Saturday, 10 February 2024 at 04:00:15 pm NZDT, Frank T. Krell <frank.krell at dmns.org<mailto:frank.krell at dmns.org>> wrote:

 Entirely incapable. Nice wording. Yes, we keep everything messy. Everything, the entire world, as messy as it has nobody seen before.

Hey, we talk about Word files. A Word file is as archival as a pencil-written notice or a species description on a magic board.
Also, the long-term availability of electronic supplements are questionable. Publishers usually do not edit them, nor do they make sure that they remain readable over the decades. I dare to predict that electronic supplements will just fade away. That's what you want to happen to species descriptions?
Then I rather prefer the ICZN to be entirely incapable to share your opinion 😊.
Still one of them for a few months
Frank

Dr. Frank-Thorsten Krell

Senior Curator of Entomology, Editor-in-Chief Commissioner and Councillor, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Department of Zoology Denver Museum of Nature & Science
2001 Colorado Blvd
Denver, Colorado 80205-5798, U.S.A.
Frank.krell at dmns.org<mailto:Frank.krell at dmns.org>
Phone 303.370.8244
Fax 303.331.6492
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmns.org%2Fscience%2Fzoology%2Fstaff%2Ffrank-krell%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168186161%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uklWxfbF5LKXYSVLEtvcF6zbd60vCx7o5ZDUS%2BoZork%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmns.org%2Fscience%2Fzoology%2Fstaff%2Ffrank-krell%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168186161%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uklWxfbF5LKXYSVLEtvcF6zbd60vCx7o5ZDUS%2BoZork%3D&reserved=0>

Wild Color: Delve into the color spectrum in “Wild Color” to explore the brightest, boldest and most delightful colors of the rainbow – and take amazing, eye-catching photos!

Color Salvaje: Sumérgete en el espectro cromático en "Color Salvaje" para explorar los colores más brillantes, atrevidos y fascinantes del arco iris... ¡y toma fotos asombrosas y llamativas!

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu>> On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 7:32 PM
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>; Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz<mailto:gread at actrix.gen.nz>>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: The practice of Zoologica Scripta

 There is no "debate". Nomenclature relegated to supplementary MSWord files is *not* code compliant in zoology. The only debate is whether or not the code needs to be adhered to so strictly, or whether these names can be used as perfectly good names for taxa, even if they fail code compliance on a technicality. My own view is that it is preferable to use a name that fails code compliance on a technicality rather than use no name at all. Probably also not worth renaming these taxa to gain code compliance, but, if they are renamed, the same epithet should be used for stability. However, the ICZN and the taxonomic community as a whole seems to be entirely incapable of achieving a sensible view on this, so it will no doubt remain messy for the foreseeable future.
Stephen
    On Saturday, 10 February 2024 at 11:46:49 am NZDT, Geoff Read via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>> wrote:

 Posting from my private email.  Sorry about the extra fluff that results from using my workplace email.

Okay.

It is https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1111%2Fzsc.12651&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168186161%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6AhS5HmmCsDoZFYGNfDGUM6QMQjqlQiNxeNsZaQuFPo%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1111%2Fzsc.12651&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168186161%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6AhS5HmmCsDoZFYGNfDGUM6QMQjqlQiNxeNsZaQuFPo%3D&reserved=0>

an article on Capitella bristleworms mainly molecularly distinguished, & open access.  However, the same treatment will have been done to all the 'early view' articles with new taxa

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Ftoc%2F14636409%2F0%2F0&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168342421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2nxNepPC7luRcHhsJ9bqSOBT7mcRympU2D%2Bz0aqCdig%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Ftoc%2F14636409%2F0%2F0&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168342421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2nxNepPC7luRcHhsJ9bqSOBT7mcRympU2D%2Bz0aqCdig%3D&reserved=0>

The 'disclaimer' is here:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fpage%2Fjournal%2F14636409%2Fhomepage%2Fproductinformation.html&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168342421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4B7zPEY%2Bl92Sy54Lu6dT39%2FwmPTLVAMOEPZgMyyqvWY%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fpage%2Fjournal%2F14636409%2Fhomepage%2Fproductinformation.html&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168342421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4B7zPEY%2Bl92Sy54Lu6dT39%2FwmPTLVAMOEPZgMyyqvWY%3D&reserved=0>

I would be very reluctant to treat the names as unavailable.  The 'work' is all the files, not just the pdf.

Geoff
--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz<mailto:gread at actrix.gen.nz>

>---- Original Message ----
>From: "Frank T. Krell via Taxacom" <taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>>
>To: "Geoff Read" <Geoffrey.Read at niwa.co.nz<mailto:Geoffrey.Read at niwa.co.nz>>, "taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>"
><taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu>>
>Sent: Sat, Feb 10, 2024, 11:25 AM
>Subject: Re: Taxacom: The practice of Zoologica Scripta
>
>Could you provide the title/link to the paper. The availability of the names depends on what is included in the pdf/A, i.e.. in the immutable part of the paper. If components required for availability are only in the Word document, the names will not be available.
>Putting taxonomy into electronic supplements gives a clear message that taxomony is second class science and not worth to be in the main journal. Zoological Scripta was always very "progressive" in terms of Code requirements, e.g., by admitting uninominal names for species, for example, following the then version of the Phylocode.
>I guess taxonomy should not be published in Zoological Scripta. What a shame. Well, I would like to see the paper first before I draw conclusions.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom<https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom>
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu<mailto: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%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168342421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c4OGMifIZvDxV4pafA3NHm0EevintVoYFatV%2FUVsPv8%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C8e1c9de2020443e84e3108dc2aac6bed%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638432168168342421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c4OGMifIZvDxV4pafA3NHm0EevintVoYFatV%2FUVsPv8%3D&reserved=0>