[Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Nov 12 18:13:30 CST 2010
the temptation to "start anew" in zoology must be resisted at all costs!
there are many ways in which bacteria taxonomy is not the same as zoological
taxonomy, one perhaps being that an 1846 description of a beetle, say, can still
render it identifiable today, but a bacterium? I think not...
From: "fautin at ku.edu" <fautin at ku.edu>
To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Frank Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Sent: Sat, 13 November, 2010 12:25:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question
A major difference, as most of you well know, with the bacterio-taxonomic
world is that registration is required. A new taxon either must be
described in the one master journal or publication of it elsewhere must be
announced in that journal. Yes, it might be because they started anew in
1980 and it might be because they have fewer taxa. But a major difference
-- one that has been proposed for zoology but is loudly rejected for many
reasons -- is the single-journal pass point. This makes tracking all
names easy -- and it allowed the bacteriologists to go electronic without
some of the objections zoologists are hearing.
Daphne G. Fautin
Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Curator, Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center
University of Kansas
1200 Sunnyside Avenue
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7534 USA
evo user name fautin
direct to database of hexacorals, including sea anemones
newest version released 1 December 2009
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Richard Pyle wrote:
> As was pointed out to me off-list, the bacteriological Code has already
> accomodated e-only publications since 2005. So really we're talking about
> botanical and zoological communities playing catch-up.
> But, of course, our communities are somewhat larger and more heterogenous,
> and we have a much longer legacy of historical names to deal with (unless,
> like the bacteriologists, we're comfortable with establishing a definitive
> list of available names and abandaoning all previous names not on the list
> -- which I don't think we'll be ready for anytime soon).
> But in any case, I think Michael's point is, the reality is increasingly
> clear, and we can either ignore that, or find ways to deal with it as best
> we can, keeping in mind not just our needs, but the needs of the generaitons
> to follow. Indeed, the issues about long-term archiving are for them, not
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
>> Michael A. Ivie
>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:40 AM
>> To: Frank.Krell at dmns.org
>> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: ICZN procedure question
>> OK, it is time for a reality check. I like paper, I like
>> books. BUT, paper is GOING TO GO AWAY. Can't change that.
>> Scientific names are going to be used, and they will
>> eventually be based on works without paper REALITY.
>> Our choice it to either manage this transition so that there
>> are some controls on the process, or lose control completely,
>> because the use of names is going to happen either within the
>> Code or the Code will be come an arcane and ignored document.
>> Drop the idea of stopping change, get used to the idea that
>> even today paper publications are "the living dead," and come
>> up with a reasonable and useful way to manage what is coming.
>> It does not matter that a majority of the CURRENT taxonomic
>> community (including me) does not like this, it maters that
>> we lead in such a way that the FUTURE taxonomic community
>> considers our actions useful enough to use.
>> Michael Ivie
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom