[Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species andthe perils of fast taxonomy
adamcot at cscoms.com
Fri May 13 03:22:38 CDT 2016
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: "'JF Mate'" <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>; "'Taxacom'"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species andthe
perils of fast taxonomy
> "The question I would like to see addressed is whether the "preserved
> specimen" should be singled out as being required to exist at the time a
> new name is published (in some or all cases), and how a revised Code
> should be crafted to ultimately result in more good than harm"
> Trying again to address that very question, but with another question: Why
> should a preserved specimen be required in all cases, when (1) the
> specimen may be diagnostically poor or even useless; and (2) in cases,
> say, where there is no specimen but only a photo, the photo may be
> diagnostically sufficient for a good description? That is the question!
> Something of a dilemma: do we make a requirement such that we miss out on
> some good opportunities just to avoid some bad possibilities?
I remember Daphne Fautin explaining on this e-mail list how the organisms
she works on cannot be preserved successfully. Any changes in the Code
should also reflect such possibilities.
I think that we should always be aware of the old saying, "if it isn't
broken don't fix it". Sometimes trying to fix things just makes actually
makes them worse.
More information about the Taxacom