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

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Tue May 10 00:46:40 CDT 2016


Not at all. My point is that there will always be "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" since there is no
police force or dictatorship to ensure perfection. Yes, by all means
challenge problems you see, but don't expect them to ever go way (unless
one day there will be "intelligent" computers that will assess all papers
and be able to cross reference every nuance and combination of rules to
provide the perfect kind of evaluation you and everyone else might wish
for).

John Grehan

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> wrote:

> 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