[Taxacom] Citation

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Feb 6 21:45:23 CST 2017


With respect Geoff, I disagree rather strongly. If there is any sort of informative scientific idea associated with the name, then fine, cite that idea (which is different to citing the name) but typically that is not the case, and people are very inconsistent in the way that they cite this stuff. For example, Linnaeus can hardly be credited as the discoverer or inventor of (the concept of) human beings, he just invented a system of naming and gave humans a name. Given that 99% of all species on Earth are obscure and of little direct interest to anyone, tracking their individual history in science back into antiquity is a waste of time. Taxonomists are already widely criticised for "living in the past", and this nonsense really doesn't help! There are far too many species out there badly needing documentation to worry about tracking long defunct ideas about known species. The only point in author/date for names is for priority in the case of synonymy and for finding original descriptions (these may be useful for lower taxa, but not for higher taxa, i.e. what use is the "original description" for Arachnida? Arachnida in what sense? The modern sense, or some long defunct sense?)

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 7/2/17, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Jan Bosselaers" <dochterland at telenet.be>, "Taxacom Mailinglist" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 7 February, 2017, 3:21 PM
 
 Stephen,
 
 Less strictly, there's
 tracking and acknowledging priority for any idea in
 science.
 
 It is
 true the Zoo code isn't interested in authorship of
 names above
 family (but it does have a few
 articles to 'regulate' the form and scope
 of those names, see art, 1.2.2).  However, we
 taxonomists are, or should
 be, still
 interested in the history of those names, and may sometimes
 want
 to indicate where they arose by means
 of citations (in the general sense
 of
 science citations - a link to a publication) to attribute
 the various
 concepts to authors, if the
 situation requires it.
 
 The
 concept name might even be pre-Linnaean, but it's still
 of interest to
 some of us to know where it
 arose, and go and have a look at the context -
 this might have been the purpose of the
 original question.  Linnaeus
 himself was
 just building on existing knowledge and name usages.  A lot
 of
 his content he lifted from others -
 usually acknowledged.
 
 Geoff
 
 On Tue,
 February 7, 2017 10:26 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > Jan,
 > Trust me, by far
 the most sensible approach is to keep it simple and
 > ignore redundant complexity like citations
 for names above the family
 > group in
 zoology. As I said, nothing is gained by use of such
 citations.
 > Certain people will insist
 on using such citations, probably because they
 > think it "looks more
 scientific", but it is pointless and meaningless!
 > Stephen
 >
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Tue, 7/2/17, Jan Bosselaers <dochterland at telenet.be>
 wrote:
 >
 >  Subject:
 Re: [Taxacom] Citation
 >  To:
 "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 >  Cc: "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>,
 "Taxacom Mailinglist"
 > <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 >  Received: Tuesday, 7 February, 2017,
 10:23 AM
 >
 > 
 Stephen, Tony,
 >
 >  I
 guess this fact explains why
 >  one
 sometimes also reads “Arachnida Lamarck,
 1801�.
 >  Apparently nobody makes
 a fuss about this situation, but it
 > 
 is confusing indeed.
 >
 >  Best,
 >
 >  Jan
 >
 >  > Op 6 feb. 2017, om 22:08 heeft
 Stephen
 >  Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 >  het volgende geschreven:
 >  >
 >  > It
 causes problems and confusion for no
 > 
 gain.
 >  >
 > 
 > "Just
 >  like a name at any
 regulated rank, the citation indicates
 >  who erected the name, ..."
 >  >
 >  >
 Actually, no! The citation indicates who
 >  first erected the name in a Code
 compliant way, but if it is
 >  a
 non-regulated name, then there is no such thing as Code
 >  compliance for that name! So, we get a
 pointless situation
 >  whereby names
 above family-group (in zoology) are just
 >  cited, for no particular reason, to
 whoever first published
 >  the name in
 more or less the way it is currently used,
 >  whereas, for regulated names, the
 citation indicates who
 >  first erected
 the name in a Code compliant way, and this is
 >  only really important because of the
 Principle of Priority
 >  (which does not
 apply to unregulated names).
 >  >
 >  > Stephen
 > 
 >
 >  >
 > 
 --------------------------------------------
 >  > On Tue, 7/2/17, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
 >  wrote:
 >  >
 >  > Subject:
 >  Re:
 [Taxacom] Citation
 >  > To:
 "Jan
 >  Bosselaers" <dochterland at telenet.be>
 >  > Cc: "Stephen Thorpe"
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 >  "Taxacom Mailinglist" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 >  > Received: Tuesday, 7 February,
 2017, 10:00
 >  AM
 > 
 >
 >  > Hello Jan,
 >  > Stephen et al.,
 >  > I do
 >  not
 >  > have a problem with citing
 authors
 >  for ranks above family,
 >  > as per the
 > 
 example at
 > http://www.eu-nomen.eu/portal/taxon.php?GUID=urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1300
 >  > . Although the zoological Code does
 not
 >  regulate these, it
 >  > does not therefore
 >  mean they cannot be used in this
 manner,
 >  > if zoologists so desire.
 Just like a name
 >  at any regulated
 >  > rank, the citation
 >  indicates who erected the name, not
 >  >
 >  necessarily
 its current circumscription.
 >  >
 Best regards - Tony
 >  >
 >  Tony
 >  > Rees,
 New South Wales,
 > 
 Australiahttps://about.me/TonyRees
 > 
 >
 >  >
 >  >
 On 7 February 2017
 >  at
 >  > 07:24, Jan Bosselaers <dochterland at telenet.be>
 >  > wrote:
 >  >
 Thanks
 >  > Stephen, for pointing
 this out to me! Much
 >  appreciated.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > Best
 wishes (the
 >  best wishes in Belgium -
 it’s true),
 >  >
 >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > Jan
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >>
 >  >
 >  >>
 From: Taxacom
 >  >
 >  >> <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.
 >  > ku.edu> on behalf of
 >  >
 >  >>
 Stephen Thorpe
 >  <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 >  >
 >  >>
 >  >
 >  >>
 Sent: 06
 >  February 2017 19:56
 >  >
 >  >>
 >  >
 >  >> To:
 taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 >  > Jan Bosselaers
 >  >
 >  >>
 >  >
 >  >>
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
 > 
 >
 >  >>
 > 
 >
 >  >>
 > 
 >
 >  >>
 > 
 >
 >  >>
 > 
 >
 >  >> Strictly
 >  >
 >  >>
 speaking, there
 >  is no
 "citation" for that
 >  >
 >  taxon
 >  >
 >  >> name,
 >  as
 names for classes are not regulated by any
 >  > code of
 > 
 >
 >  >> nomenclature.
 Attribution of Arachnida
 >  to Cuvier
 1812
 >  > is
 > 
 >
 >
 >  >>
 meaningless and potentially rather
 > 
 misleading given
 >  > how
 >  >
 >  >>
 taxonomic
 >  >
 > 
 >>   concepts change over
 >  time.
 >  >
 >  >>
 >  >
 >  >>
 >  >
 >  >>
 >  >
 >  >> 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
 >
 >
 >
 Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years,
 1987-2017.
 >
 
 
 --
 Geoffrey B.
 Read, Ph.D.
 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list