[Taxacom] Botanical Plagiarism

Geoff Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Mon Mar 11 18:27:23 CDT 2013

On Tue, March 12, 2013 10:59 am, Richard Pyle wrote:

[a lot of good stuff, but ...]

WoRMS editors are advised not to publish their new unpublished taxonomic
research on WoRMS except in an indicative way.  If unpublished the change
should not be there as a 'fact'. The manual states: "If you think the
species is a synonym, but you have not published it, then add a note like
this "The validity of this recently described species needs to be
reevaluated". " Also sometimes one has to take a stance when there are
differing positions in the lit. This will/should be stated.

I'm sure editor original decisions creep in not annotated on WoRMS, but
they sure shouldn't.  And they're really irritating to see when not backed
by sources or explanations - like where the hell did that come from!

Geoff  [WoRMS Polychaeta ed]

> For example, suppose an expert working for WoRMS spends months researching
> a
> particular species, and compiles a list of names he/she thinks represent
> junior heterotypic synonyms, and does extensive research to figure out the
> global distribution (beyond points on a map), and does any number of
> value-added things that are not obviously just fact-indexing.  In my mind,
> that effort is very much within the realm of a creative work, and
> intellectual property rights for the expert should be honored.  Whatever
> agreement the expert has with WoRMS to expose that information via the
> website is between the expert and WoRMS.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list