[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Oct 7 23:16:36 CDT 2015


Yes, it did, and crucially! I clearly stated that I was judging the case purely on the passage that you did quote. If this latest bit is in there, then that changes the facts, and the neotype designation is valid, though perhaps still somewhat problematically overly complicated.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/10/15, Ivie, Michael <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015, 4:59 PM
 
 Hmm, did this get left out of earlier
 sendings?
 
 "B. and W. (2007) list the type of Bostrichus cephalotes
 Olivier to be in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle,
 Paris, without comment, but it had already been reported
 lost by the curator of that collection, bostrichid
 specialist Pierre Lesne (Lesne 1905, 1909), and was not
 reported to have been seen by any other researcher,
 including my failed search for it on several visits to
 Paris. W. (in litt.) confirmed that the actual type was not
 seen to be there, therefore, the B. and W. (2007) reference
 is for where it should be, not where it actually resides.
 The collection of the King of France was one of the
 collections that formed the core of the Museum National
 d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, so there is nowhere else to
 expect it. Thus, the type of Bostrichus cephalotes Olivier
 must be considered to be lost."
 ________________________________________
 From: Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:29 PM
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 Ivie, Michael
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
 
 But you didn't even say that you couldn't find it. You just
 said it was lost. That's not a reason!
 
 Stephen
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
  To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015, 2:30 PM
 
  I didn't think that part could be
  considered hard, as the requirement is
  just that you explain why.  You can say "I couldn't
  find it" and that is
  actually all that is required.  Doing it correctly
 and
  well is not hard,
  doing it "legally" is easy.
 
  On 10/7/2015 7:18 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
  > Just judging by the excerpt you quoted (I haven't
  looked at the source publication), this neotype
 designation
  fails
  >
  > 75.3.4. the author's reasons for believing the
  name-bearing type specimen(s) (i.e. holotype, or
 lectotype,
  or all syntypes, or prior neotype) to be lost or
 destroyed,
  and the steps that had been taken to trace it or them;
  >
  > Stephen
  >
  > --------------------------------------------
  > On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
  wrote:
  >
  >   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin
  Fikacek resign
  >   To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
  "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
  <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  >   Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015,
  2:09 PM
  >
  >   Here is one such example
  >   as you asked.  It is really
 very
  simple
  >   boilerplate from the Code
  >
  >   "The fact that the type was made up
  of
  >   pieces of multiple species does
  >   not
  >   invalidate the name (Art. 17.1), and
  since the type is lost,
  >   and the
  >   name involved in taxonomic
  >   confusion, a neotype is required
 (Art.
  75).
  >   The specimen here designated neotype
  is a male
  >   labeled “Rodrigues i.;
  >   viii–xi.1918; H
  >   J Snell &; H P Thomasset/ Percy
  Sladen; Trust exped.;
  >
  >   Brit. Mus.; 1926-246/ NEOTYPE;
  Bostrichus
  >   cephalotes; Olivier 1790;
  >   desg. M. A.
  >   Ivie” and deposited in the Natural
  History Museum, London.
  >
  >   The neotype is from a different
 place
  than
  >   the original type, but
  >   because of a lack of
  >   available specimens from Réunion,
 and
  because this
  >   African species was certainly
  introduced to
  >   that island from the
  >   mainland, it is from a
  >   neighboring island, as close to the
  original type
  >   locality as is practical. Under Art.
  76.3, the
  >   type locality is now
  >   considered to be
  >   Rodrigues Island.
  >   This neotype is designated
  >   for the express purpose of
 clarifying
  the
  >   taxonomic status and type locality.
  The
  >   characters that distinguish this
  >   taxon are
  >   those of Bostrychoplites cornutus
  (Olivier) as given by
  >   Lesne
  >   (1899, 1929), Basilewski (1952) and
  >   others. The sex of the neotype
  >   differs from
  >   that of the lost type, as allowed
  under Art. 75.3.5,
  >   because it is desirable to secure
  stability of
  >   nomenclature.
  >   As such, Bostrichus cephalotes
  >   Olivier 1790 is now to be considered
  a
  >   synonym."
  >
  >   Mike
  >
  >   On
  >   10/7/2015 6:01 PM, Stephen Thorpe
  wrote:
  >   > Ah, Mike, my favourite sparring
  partner!
  >   Well, perhaps you could give me an
  example of your attempts
  >   to validly designate neotypes, and I
  will then reconsider my
  >   statement accordingly, though,
 please
  bear in mind that
  >   "difficult" is a vaguely defined
  continuum, and I
  >   didn't specify how difficult
 exactly.
  At the very least,
  >   Art. 75 of the Code is rather long
  winded, and therefore
  >   somewhat "difficult" to get one's
 head
  around.
  >   It could do with simplification.
  >   >
  >   > Stephen
  >   >
  >   >
  >   --------------------------------------------
  >   > On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A.
 Ivie
  <mivie at montana.edu>
  >   wrote:
  >   >
  >   >   Subject: Re:
  [Taxacom] why
  >   Martin Fikacek resign
  >   >   To:
  >   taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  >   >   Received:
  Thursday, 8
  >   October, 2015, 12:06 PM
  >   >
  >   >   Stephen,
  >   >
  >   >   Please,
 explain
  how
  >   exactly
  >   >   the Code makes
  >   designating a needed Neotype
  >   >   difficult?
  I have done it
  >   several times, and
  >   >   it has
  >   never been difficult.
  >   >
  >   >   Mike
  >   >
  >   >   On
  >   >   10/7/2015 4:50
  PM, Stephen
  >   Thorpe wrote:
  >   >   >
  >   Incidentally, the only possible
  problems
  >   >   arising from
 the
  description
  >   of this fly are if there turns
  >   >   out to be more
  than one
  >   externally identical species of such
  >   >   fly, in
  sympatry, with
  >   different internal genitalia and/or
  >   >   DNA. Then, we
  can't ever
  >   know which species was
  >   >   described.
  However, this is
  >   essentially the same problem as
  >   >   with early
  descriptions by
  >   Linnaeus, etc., where types no
  >   >   longer exist.
  The problem is
  >   in principle rather easy to
  >   >   solve with a
  neotype, though
  >   the current Code makes that
  >   >   difficult. At
  worst, one just
  >   has to make a choice of which
  >   >   species was
  described, and
  >   hopefully nobody else will insist
  >   >   on a contrary
  choice! The
  >   Code really needs to try to make
  >   >   potential
  problems easily
  >   solvable, rather then creating
  >   >   problems!
  >   >   >
  >   >   >
  >   >   Stephen
  >   >   >
  >   >   >
  >   >   --------------------------------------------
  >   >   > On Thu,
  8/10/15, Doug
  >   Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
  >   >   wrote:
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   Subject:
  >   Re: [Taxacom] why
  >   >   Martin
  >   Fikacek resign
  >   >   >   To:
  >   >   taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  >   >   >   Received:
  >   Thursday, 8
  >   >   October, 2015,
  >   11:28 AM
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   Martin:
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   If
  I might,
  >   let me comment
  >   >   on
  >   >   >   a
  few
  >   things:
  >   >   >   (1)
  this
  >   fly is not the
  >   >   first
  >   >   >   animal
  >   species
  >   >   described
  solely
  >   from a
  >   >   >   photograph,
  >   nor even the
  >   >   first insect
  >   (as far
  >   >   >   as
  I
  >   >   can tell, that
  honor
  >   >   >   goes
  >   >   to Bebearia
  >   >   >   banksi,
  >   a
  >   >   nymphalid
  described in
  >   1998 - with thanks to
  >   >   >   Cosmin
  >   Manci for pointing
  >   >   that
  >   out to me), so
  >   >   >   it
  >   >   does not set a
  >   >   >   precedent;
  >   >   it is simply
  >   >   >   one
  of a
  >   >   growing list.
  >   >   >   (2)
  the
  >   >   authors did
  >   >   >   not
  attempt
  >   to
  >   >   conceal the
  facts of
  >   the case, or
  >   >   >   (for
  >   example) refer to a
  >   >   deposited
  specimen
  >   >   >   which
  >   >   never existed,
  so the
  >   >   >   work
  >   >   cannot be
  >   >   >   dismissed
  >   as
  >   >   fraudulent in
  any
  >   way.
  >   >   >   (3)
  >   >   if
  >   >   >   you
  are
  >   concerned about
  >   >   people
  >   naming new species based on
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   limited
  or
  >   potentially
  >   >   fabricated
  >   evidence
  >   >   >   even
  >   >   though the
 Code
  allows
  >   >   >   for
  >   >   it, then
  >   >   >   why
  not
  >   submit a
  >   >   letter to the
  >   Commission (with a few
  >   >   >   thousand
  >   signatories,
  >   >   preferably)
  >   in favor of
  >   >   >   amending
  >   the Code in such
  >   >   >   a
  way as to
  >   help
  >   >   >   prevent
  >   what you see as being
  >   >   abusive? For
  example,
  >   >   >   establishing
  >   a strict set of
  >   >   guidelines
  >   for
  >   >   >   public
  >   >   review of
  taxonomic
  >   >   >   works,
  >   >   which
  >   >   >   must
  be met
  >   before a
  >   >   name will be
  >   considered available
  >   >   >   under
  the
  >   Code, rather than
  >   >   simply
  >   accepting as
  >   >   >   available
  >   virtually
  >   >   >   anything
  >   that meets the
  >   >   >   Code's
  >   definition of
  >   >   "published"? I
  and
  >   others
  >   >   >   -
  >   >   >   including
  >   other Commissioners
  >   >   - have
  >   been
  >   >   >   advocating
  >   >   this sort of
  change
  >   >   >   for
  >   >   years
  >   >   >   now,
  and
  >   oddly there
  >   >   seems to be
  >   little public support for
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   such
  >   measures. Would you not
  >   >   like to be
  >   >   >   able
  to
  >   cast a
  >   >   vote for or
  >   >   >   against
  >   any
  >   >   >   given
  >   proposed new name
  >   >   BEFORE
  >   being compelled to recognize
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   it?
  [Case
  >   in point: had such
  >   >   a
  >   mechanism
  >   >   >   existed,
  >   I
  >   >   would have
  voted
  >   >   >   against
  >   >   >   Bebearia
  >   banksi, and in favor
  >   >   of
  >   Marleyimyia xylocopae]
  >   >   >   (4)
  if you
  >   are specifically
  >   >   concerned
  >   with
  >   >   >   issues
  >   of
  >   >   quality
 control
  in
  >   >   >   the
  >   >   editorial
  >   >   >   process
  >   at
  >   >   Zookeys, then
 I
  might
  >   think you'd have a
  >   >   >   better
  >   >   >   chance
  of
  >   effecting change
  >   >   by
  >   >   >   remaining
  >   within the
  >   >   system, and
  >   pushing
  >   >   >   for
  a
  >   >   dialogue on
  editorial policy
  >   there,
  >   >   >   rather
  than
  >   resigning your
  >   >   >   post.
  That
  >   is,
  >   >   >   admittedly,
  >   just my two cents
  >   >   as an
  >   outsider.
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   As
  I've
  >   noted
  >   >   elsewhere,
  >   >   >   this
  >   particular
  >   >   case was
  >   well-documented, and
  >   >   >   passed
  what
  >   I assume to be a
  >   >   rigorous
  >   >   >   peer-review
  >   >   process. The
  authors
  >   >   >   made
  >   >   a
  >   >   >   compelling
  >   case that
  >   >   this is a new
  >   taxon, at the very least,
  >   >   >   and
  >   >   >   that
  is
  >   more than I can say
  >   >   for
  >   many
  >   >   >   other
  >   recent
  >   >   taxonomic
 works
  >   I've
  >   >   >   seen
  >   >   >   for
  which
  >   type specimens DO
  >   >   exist. I
  >   rather suspect that the
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   editors
  and
  >   reviewers were
  >   >   entirely
  >   >   >   prepared
  >   to
  >   >   reject this
  paper had
  >   it
  >   >   >   not
  >   >   >   appeared
  to
  >   be a "safe
  >   >   bet"
  >   to them, and therefore
  >   >   >   would
  not
  >   judge
  >   >   >   them
  as
  >   harshly as you
  >   >   >   appear
  to
  >   be doing. Had this
  >   >   work
  >   been authored
  >   >   >   by
  >   >   someone with
 no
  credentials,
  >   in a journal
  >   >   >   with
  no
  >   peer review, I
  >   >   >   would
  >   probably be
  >   >   >   condemning
  >   it, as well; but
  >   >   the Code
  >   does not allow us
  >   >   >   to
  judge
  >   cases by their
  >   >   merits
  >   before accepting
  >   >   >   new
  names,
  >   just by
  >   >   >   compliance
  >   or lack
  >   >   >   thereof,
  >   and at times this
  >   >   can be a
  >   problem. If we as
  >   >   >   a
  community
  >   are concerned
  >   >   about
  >   possible abuses
  >   >   >   of
  >   >   the Code, and
 we
  WANT
  >   >   >   to
  >   >   judge cases
  >   >   >   based
  on
  >   their
  >   >   merits, then
  the
  >   solution is to change the
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   system
  -
  >   specifically, such
  >   >   that
  >   good
  >   >   >   science
  >   will
  >   >   flourish, /and
  bad
  >   >   >   science
  >   >   >   will
  be
  >   rejected/. That much
  >   >   is in
  >   our power, it just takes
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   will,
  >   commitment, and
  >   >   consensus.
  >   Perhaps
  >   >   >   some
  >   >   day there will
  be a
  >   >   >   critical
  >   mass of
  >   >   >   taxonomists
  >   who are fed up
  >   >   enough to
  >   push for this sort
  >   >   >   of
  change,
  >   but I've been
  >   >   pushing
  >   for 20
  >   >   >   years
  >   now,
  >   >   and it still
  seems
  >   to
  >   >   >   be
  >   >   all
  >   >   >   uphill.
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   Sincerely,
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   --
  >   >   >   Doug
  >   >   >   Yanega
  >     Dept. of
  >   >   Entomology
  >   >   >
      Entomology
  >   Research
  >   >   Museum
  >   >   >   Univ.
  of
  >   >   California,
  Riverside, CA
  >   92521-0314
  >   >   >
  >   >
     skype: dyanega
  >   >   >   phone:
  >   (951)
  >   >   >   827-4315
  >   (disclaimer:
  >   >   opinions are
  >   mine, not UCR's)
  >   >   >
  >   >
  >
     http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
  >   >   >
      "There are
  >   some
  >   >   enterprises
  >   >   >   in
  which
  >   a
  >   >   careful
  >   disorderliness
  >   >   >
  >   >   >
      is the true
  >   method" - Herman
  >   >   Melville,
  >   >   >   Moby
  Dick,
  >   Chap.
  >   >   82
  >   >   >
  >   >   >   _______________________________________________
  >   >   >   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.
  >   >
  >   >   --
  >   >   __________________________________________________
  >   >
  >   >   Michael A.
 Ivie,
  Ph.D.,
  >   >   F.R.E.S.
  >   >
  >   >   Montana
  Entomology
  >   >   Collection
  >   >   Marsh Labs,
 Room
  50
  >   >   1911 West
  Lincoln Street
  >   >   NW
  >   >   corner of
  Lincoln and
  >   S.19th
  >   >   Montana State
  >   >   University
  >   >   Bozeman, MT
  59717
  >   >   USA
  >   >
  >   >   (406)
  >   >   994-4610
  (voice)
  >   >   (406) 994-6029
  (FAX)
  >   >   mivie at montana.edu
  >   >
  >   >   _______________________________________________
  >   >   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.
  >   >
  >   >
  >   > .
  >   >
  >
  >   --
  >   __________________________________________________
  >
  >   Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
  >   F.R.E.S.
  >
  >   Montana Entomology
  >   Collection
  >   Marsh Labs, Room 50
  >   1911 West Lincoln Street
  >   NW
  >   corner of Lincoln and S.19th
  >   Montana State
  >   University
  >   Bozeman, MT 59717
  >   USA
  >
  >   (406)
  >   994-4610 (voice)
  >   (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
  >   mivie at montana.edu
  >
  >
 
  --
  __________________________________________________
 
  Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
 
  Montana Entomology Collection
  Marsh Labs, Room 50
  1911 West Lincoln Street
  NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
  Montana State University
  Bozeman, MT 59717
  USA
 
  (406) 994-4610 (voice)
  (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
  mivie at montana.edu
 
  _______________________________________________
  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