[Taxacom] describing new species

John Noyes j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
Wed Dec 19 03:30:59 CST 2012

Hi Mike,

Personally, I think we should make taxonomy as easy as possible to others. If the taxonomy of the group on which you work is too easy then you are working on the wrong group.


John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Entomology
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Wilson
Sent: 18 December 2012 21:30
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] describing new species


To (partly) address Neal's comment. To me it remains essential to describe new species as part of a revision of a group. But some seem to prioritise and celebrate the description of 'new species' over the recognition of 'known' species. How many places in the world are you able to identify 'common' species in many groups without special expertise and knowledge of the literature? Would the Journal that rejected Chris's paper publish a paper in which a key to say 20 known species was given that made life easier for users- or is that not considered science now?  A colleague did say to me some time ago- if you make taxonomy too easy for others to use we won't have jobs... but that's another issue.

Mike Wilson

National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, UK


Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list