[Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon May 9 23:12:50 CDT 2016


Yeah, so let's all go back to sleep and let it continue to happen unchallenged!


--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 10/5/16, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "taxacom" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Geoffrey Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 Received: Tuesday, 10 May, 2016, 3:54 PM
 
 Life is
 unfair.
 John
 Grehan
 On Mon,
 May 9, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 Hi
 Geoff,
 
 I am rather more concerned with the general issues than this
 specific case. The general issues go very far beyond just
 Diptera. What irks me the most, quite frankly, is that if I
 try to publish anything, it gets nitpicked to death by
 editors and reviewers, but some other people appear to be
 able to publish any old garbage unchallenged! I would have
 hoped that someone from 14 authors, at least two reviewers,
 or the editorial team for the journal might have picked up
 on the, as you put it, "misrepresentations of the
 Code" and "obvious factual errors"! Journals
 tend not to alter manuscripts after they have been published
 in the online first edition version of record, and to do so
 could pave the way to even bigger problems! One worry is
 that people who are not themselves fluent with the Code will
 tend to believe 14 authors over the 3 original authors of
 the new fly, and so confusion and division will result.
 IMHO, publishers of scientific journals ought to steer clear
 of opportunistic opinion pieces like the present case. It is
 not science and it has no place in a scientific journal. I
 don't know what the solution is to the problem of
 ineffectual/lame peer review, or to reviewers who think that
 some authors don't need to have their submissions
 scrutinised much, while other authors do, and base this on
 political rather than scientific considerations.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Stephen
 
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 
 On Tue, 10/5/16, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 wrote:
 
 
 
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On
 typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy
 
  To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 
  Received: Tuesday, 10 May, 2016, 3:00 PM
 
 
 
 
 
  Hi Stephen,
 
 
 
  You could write privately to the lead author, if you
 haven't
 
  already (I'm
 
  resisting involving him here by cc).
 
 
 
  I don't see much wrong with the general sentiments
 expressed
 
  in the
 
  article. However the two sentences top of page 3
 
  misrepresent the code.
 
  Take them away and the authors are just expressing
 opinions
 
  on taxonomic
 
  practice. It may be possible to change an obvious
 factual
 
  error as the
 
  article is not yet in a print issue. Or the authors
 could
 
  withdraw the
 
  article and resubmit.
 
 
 
  Geoff
 
  ________________________________________
 
  From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 
  on behalf of John
 
  Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 
  Sent: 09 May 2016 14:39
 
  To: Stephen Thorpe
 
  Cc: samarsha at uoguelph.ca;
 
  taxacom
 
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On
 typeless
 
  species and
 
  the perils of fast taxonomy
 
 
 
  Stephen,
 
 
 
  Why not write to the journal and volunteer your
 expertise?
 
 
 
  John Grehan
 
 
 
  On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 
  wrote:
 
 
 
  > Hi all,
 
  >
 
  > I'm furious over this new article:
 
  > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12180/abstract
 
  >
 
  > They say: However, according to Article 16.4 of
 the
 
  ICZN (1999), only
 
  > holotypes of extant taxa should be housed in a
 public
 
  scientific
 
  > collection. Marleyimyia xycolopae is obviously an
 
  extant species.
 
  > Accordingly, its type specimen should be deposited in
 a
 
  scientific
 
  > collection ... In short, Marshall and Evenhuis
 
  published a nomen nudum
 
  > because their discovery is backed only by a
 photograph
 
  and not by a type
 
  > specimen.
 
  >
 
  > Art. 16.4 actually says:
 
  > 16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant
 
  specimens, by a
 
  > statement of intent that they will be (or are)
 
  deposited in a collection
 
  > and a statement indicating the name and location
 of
 
  that collection.
 
  >
 
  > Extant SPECIMENS, NOT extant SPECIES!!!
 
  >
 
  > The argument offered against the availability of
 the
 
  name Marleyimyia
 
  > xycolopae is clearly based on a gross
 misinterpretation
 
  of the Code, and is
 
  > makes the whole article by Santos et al. utterly
 
  pointless! I am extremely
 
  > alarmed that nobody out of 14 authors, at least
 two
 
  reviewers and an
 
  > editorial team from a supposedly reputable journal
 
  could not catch this
 
  > fundamental error before it went to print. Peer
 review
 
  just doesn't work,
 
  > it would seem.
 
  >
 
  > Stephen
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  _______________________________________________
 
  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
 
 
 
  Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in
 2016.
 
 _______________________________________________
 
 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
 
 
 
 Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
 
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list