[Taxacom] Citation

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Feb 7 13:48:31 CST 2017


Geoff,
I suspect that you are confusing history of ideas with history of names. The former may be worthwhile to research, yes, but not the latter. The important ideas associated with a taxon may not be associated with the publication of a name for that taxon, and this is particularly so for higher taxa.
Stephen

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

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citation
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Taxacom Mailinglist" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 7 February, 2017, 7:15 PM
 
 Hi Stephen,
 
 There were binominal names before Linnaeus, so it was
 something he
 applied, rather than invented.
 
 It's a pity if you've got no interest in the history of
 science and naming
 things.  To say it is nonsense is very harsh. For
 instance the Lifewatch
 site showcased Aristotle last year, with some brief articles
 that are
 worth a look through. Quote: "Names – such as
 ‘tetrapoda’ & ‘malacostraca’
 - were first introduced by Aristotle more than 2000 years
 ago".
 
 http://www.lifewatch.be/en/2016-news-aristotle
 
 We should credit our predecessors when appropriate - it's
 all incremental
 knowledge bit by bit, and they were probably as intelligent
 as we are!
 
 Cheers,
 
 Geoff
 
 On Tue, February 7, 2017 4:45 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > 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
 
 
 --
 Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
 8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list