[Taxacom] Why stability?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Apr 29 21:17:47 CDT 2015


I am merely saying that in lots of cases (not all cases, but lots), species cannot be identified from the literature, so there is no publication to cite for the ID. If there is a suitable publication, and it was used for the ID, then it may make some sense to cite it. My point was just that this is only going to be possible some of the time, that's all.

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 30/4/15, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
 To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Thursday, 30 April, 2015, 1:37 PM
 
 "Hence there is no
 publication to cite for the identification."
 
 Here is the kernel of
 inaccuracy. I have (and I suspect most people in
 Taxacom do as well, either in cellulose or
 digital) a large collection
 of things called
 books which are called upo as our external brain
 hard-driveI. No just for Europe or North
 America, poor in species as
 they may be, but
 for many areas in the world. There are many groups
 without modern keys, I grant you that, but when
 keys are available,
 citing them is a useful
 for those who will come after. In fact NZ has
 a number of modern keys covering many
 Coleoptera groups (can´t comment
 on what I
 don´t know). Are you tellng me you don´t use them?
 
 
 Jason
 
 On 30 April 2015 at 03:21,
 Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 > Sorry Jason, but I was not
 incorrect! As I said, many (perhaps most) species are not
 identifiable from the literature. Most insect IDs (at least
 in this country) are done by somebody directly comparing
 specimens to already identified specimens in collections.
 Typically, the only thing published is a useless original
 description from the 1800s or something. Hence there is no
 publication to cite for the identification.
 "Experience" enters the issue because the result
 of comparing specimens depends on the experience of the
 person doing the comparison, i.e. a newbee will typically
 make lots of mistakes.
 >
 > Stephen
 >
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Thu, 30/4/15, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 >
 >  Subject:
 Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
 >  To:
 "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 >  Received: Thursday, 30 April, 2015, 1:15
 PM
 >
 >  Sorry Stephen
 but this is
 >  incorrect. Everybody´s
 "experience" is a
 > 
 combination of actual experience (burning the
 >  midnight oil comparing
 >  own material against
 >  identified specimens in a museum or
 advice from
 >  colleagues or mentors
 that we have internalised
 >  and made
 our own for
 >  example) and
 >  literature. By putting your name on the
 I.D. label and
 >  the year you tell
 others more or less at what
 >  stage of
 your experience
 >  you where at when
 >  you attached the label. The
 "sec" is to indicate
 >  on
 >  which authors you rely on (let´s
 face
 >  it, nobody is an expert in
 every
 >  group). For
 >  example, in Europe if you work on
 scarabs you rely on
 >  Baraud and
 Balthasar most of the time. In 50
 > 
 years we may have
 >  different ones but
 it
 >  would be helpful to know which one
 you owned or
 >  used most often or a
 that time. As a practical
 >  example
 think of
 >  Aphodius fimetarius.
 Since
 >  2001 I write "sensu Wilson
 2001" to make it
 >  clear that the
 concept I am using acknowledges
 >  the
 specific
 >  distinctiveness of
 pedellus.
 >
 >  As to
 citing the authority, I
 >  see it as
 part of the binomial. It makes
 > 
 communication more accurate.
 >
 >  Jason
 >
 >  On 30 April 2015 at 01:15, Stephen
 Thorpe
 >  <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 >  wrote:
 >  > What
 Mary said is, IMHO,
 >  somewhat mixed up
 and confused! One should cite the authors
 >  of the original combination primarily
 for nomenclatural (not
 >  taxonomic
 reasons). Botany confuses the issue by making
 >  combinations a nomenclatural matter.
 Zoology treats them
 >  (almost entirely)
 as taxonomic. The "reference used for
 >  the identification" is another
 matter altogether. Most
 >  IDs published
 in ecological studies are done by people
 >  ("experts"), who, like myself,
 identify taxa based
 >  more on
 experience/memory with relevant collections and
 >  familiarity with the local fauna, rather
 than by way of a
 >  specific
 publication. Many species can only be identified by
 >  a historical chain of IDs, hopefully
 involving comparision
 >  to the type at
 some stage along the way. They cannot be
 >  identified from the literature.
 >  >
 >  >
 Stephen
 >  >
 > 
 >
 >  >
 > 
 --------------------------------------------
 >  > On Thu, 30/4/15, Mary Barkworth
 <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
 >  wrote:
 >  >
 >  >  Subject:
 > 
 Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
 >  > 
 To:
 >  "JF Mate" <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>,
 >  "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 >  >  Received: Thursday, 30 April,
 2015,
 >  10:51 AM
 > 
 >
 >  >  IMO. It
 >  is not the lack
 > 
 >  of a catchy name that
 >  has
 prevented the practice of citing
 > 
 >
 >  the reference used for
 identification in giving a
 > 
 scientific
 >  >  name but the
 insistence by
 >  taxonomists that one
 should cite
 >  >  the
 >  original author(s) of the combination
 and that this
 >  >  provides
 accuracy of interpretation. It
 >  was
 not until the
 >  >  Vienna
 Botanical
 >  Congress of 2005 (or
 thereabouts) that the
 >  >  wording
 the botanical code read "In
 > 
 publications,
 >  >  particularly
 those
 >  dealing with taxonomy and
 nomenclature,
 >  >  it **may** be
 desirable, even when no
 > 
 bibliographic
 >  >  reference to
 the
 >  protologue is made, to cite the
 author(s)
 >  >  of the name
 concerned ...". Before
 >  that it
 read as if
 >  >  one always had
 to
 >  cite the authors - and all journal
 and
 >  >  book editors wanted the
 works they
 >  published seen to be
 good
 >  >  science so
 >  they required citation of the original
 authors
 >  >  and people that became
 faculty said it
 >  was necessary too.
 >  >
 >  >  So we
 have to change a culture. That
 >  is
 >  >  always difficult.  I have
 been
 >  told I do not understand
 >  >  nomenclature
 >  for  arguing that one should cite
 the
 >  >  reference used to
 determine the name (a
 >  flora or some
 such).
 >  >  The objections
 >  that I have heard are that someone is
 simply
 >  >  using the name they
 were told by someone
 >  else or that
 they
 >  >  know the plant so
 >  well they do not know whether it has
 ever
 >  >  had another concept, or
 that they are
 >  using the concept
 they
 >  >  have
 >  developed.
 >  > 
 One reason I like the
 >  >  Symbiota
 data entry form is that it
 >  provides
 for citing the
 >  >  reference
 >  used (although perhaps it should be
 visible by
 >  >  default?) but
 taxonomists have spent
 >  decades
 convincing
 >  >  people that, to
 be
 >  good science, the original authors
 of
 >  >
 > 
 scientific names should be cited. We should not be
 >  surprised
 >  > 
 if it takes a similar
 >  length of time
 to change the practice.
 >  >  Do
 those of you that are journal editors
 > 
 ask for information
 >  >  as to
 the
 >  reference used for an
 identification or for the
 >  > 
 original authors of the combination.
 > 
 >  Mary
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 > 
 _______________________________________________
 >  >  Taxacom Mailing List
 >  >  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >  >  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 >  >  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
 may
 >  be
 >  > 
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >  >
 >  > 
 Celebrating 28
 >  years of
 >  >  Taxacom in 2015.
 >  >
 > 
 _______________________________________________
 >  Taxacom Mailing List
 >  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.eduhttp://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 >  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be
 >  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 >  Celebrating 28
 years of
 >  Taxacom in 2015.
 >
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list