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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue May 10 01:07:14 CDT 2016


Fair enough. I don't expect the problems to "go away" any more than the police force expect crime to just go away, but it doesn't stop them from trying.

S

--------------------------------------------
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, 5:46 PM
 
 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