[Taxacom] Why stability?

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Apr 30 13:05:01 CDT 2015


Errr.... yeah.  What he said.

Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> JF Mate
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:15 PM
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
> 
> 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.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