[Taxacom] e-only from Do rogue taxonomists need rogue publishers?
dyanega at ucr.edu
Tue Feb 9 12:45:08 CST 2010
David Campbell wrote:
>In addition to the problem of intentional rogue taxonomy, e-only makes
>accidental rogue taxonomy much easier, e.g. putting online something
>that is unpublished such as a dissertation; making and perpetuating of
>erroneous names; taxonomic changes occuring in poorly documented
>updates; etc. We have these sorts of problems already in print; e-only
>simply allows the problem to be much bigger.
Before this gets any farther off track...
The *idea* is to allow names published in e-only *journals* to be
taxonomically valid. The idea is NOT to validate names appearing in
any electronic document anywhere.
No one (outside of the proverbial rogues) would support or promote a
proposal that made the latter possible.
Also, Pat LaFollette wrote:
>So far as I have been able to discover, no form of electronic record
>is accepted as permanent by governments, business, or law. (Apart
>from paper, only microfilm is acceptable in some cases.) If e-only
>is not considered suitable for laws, vital records, deeds, business
>contracts, or any other record that law requires be preserved for
>more than a few (3 to 7) years, how can systematic biology find it
>acceptable for the permanent taxonomic record?
The amount of money that has been spent on the sequences stored in
GenBank is absolutely massive. There is no "print version" of
GenBank; they consider electronic archives to be perfectly
acceptable. If they can accept it, WE can accept it. There is nothing
*technically* challenging here, only a source of funding to maintain
and upgrade the archives.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
More information about the Taxacom