[Taxacom] "Taxon Filter" (was Re: Electronic publication)

Scott Thomson scott.thomson321 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 14:46:24 CST 2017


Just to cut through the issue here a bit. I am going to state what
herpetology will not say they want from all this. I am not saying I agree
or disagree with what they want, but I will state that I do not think the
World Congress of Herpetology is a good reviewer in all this. The
organisation has almost no interest in taxonomy, or nomenclature and do not
overly welcome contributions on either. I do not consider phylogeography as
taxonomy which is as close as they get. Thier membership is not made up of
a group who would understand the intricacies of nomenclatural issues for
the most part, with a very few exceptions.

What the herpetologists want is an end to the constant naming of taxa with
no scientific evidence that entities are actually taxa. So yes they want
the science judged with the nomenclature. The point I tried to make to
Hinrich the other day was that the Code endeavors to deal with nomenclature
only. In any case herpetologists want this connected because a number of
them do not wish to feel compelled to use names that have no scientific
basis. I get the point made anyone can name anything they see is a species.
The problem with a vertebrate group like reptiles or amphibians is the flow
on impact to conservation legislation. Legislation which can take from 2-10
years to to pass through. Impacts on CITES and other international
agreements and their local support legislation's.

So while we discuss this, be aware, that the reason behind some of this is
a push to have more control on what evidence is required to have a
scientific name brought into usage, and that this evidence being presented
as a requirement for the validity of the nomenclatural act.

Cheers, Scott

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:

> This is why I support separating the "publication" process from the
> nomenclatural availability process.
>
> For the example you gave, there would need to be some part of the
> registration system (e.g., diagnostic characters, photo of holotype, etc.)
> that enabled the determination that the second bug is the same taxon as the
> first bug.  This is where we start to delve into taxonomy.  At minimum,
> someone would need to examine the type specimen as designated in the
> registration record.  But I think it would be better if the registration
> record itself included sufficient information to determine whether a
> subsequent specimen belongs to the same species.
>
> Rich
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> > Of John Grehan
> > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:13 AM
> > To: Adam Cotton
> > Cc: taxacom
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "Taxon Filter" (was Re: Electronic publication)
> >
> > So if the issue is purely nomenclatural I do not see the need to be
> submitting
> > a fully developed paper. Seems just a waste of time. Just provide what is
> > necessary for nomenclatural verification and registration of the proposed
> > name. And what would that be at the bare minimum?
> >
> > I presume the intent of registration would be to assign priority to a
> name.
> > So if, for example, I had a bug that was first recognized as a different
> > species, I could register a name for that bug, but then I might be
> delayed in
> > publishing for five years (actually happened) but then during that
> interval
> > before publication if someone else who found the same bug registered
> > another name would only be notified if the original person for that name
> was
> > notified and realized it was the same. And how long will a registered
> name
> > have priority before final publication - 1, 2, 5, 10 years?
> > What if someone dies in the meantime?
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Adam Cotton <adamcot at cscoms.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Pyle" <
> > > deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> > > To: "'Neal Evenhuis'" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; "'Doug Yanega'" <
> > > dyanega at ucr.edu>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 2:24 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "Taxon Filter" (was Re: Electronic publication)
> > >
> > >>
> > >> The way I imagine it working for such cases is that there would be a
> > >> defined time-period of, say, one month where people could comment on
> > >> each registration record.  If that period expires without a minimum
> > >> number of comments (>1, but not sure how much more than one), then
> > >> then name is automatically accepted (i.e., newly proposed names are
> > >> available until proven unavailable, which is how the system has
> > >> always been).  I don't think the problem will be with the names that
> > >> nobody reviews.  I think the problem will be the ones that have MANY
> > reviews, with no clear consensus.
> > >> This will be PARTICULARLY problematic if too much "taxonomy" is
> > >> entangled with the nomenclatural process (e.g., I foresee endless
> > >> splitter vs. lumper debates).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > This is precisely why, in my opinion, it is VERY important that
> > > whatever system is adopted to supercede the current traditional one it
> > > must only concern itself with NOMENCLATURE. Any taxonomic
> > > considerations, such as those "splitter vs. lumper" issues, should be
> > > completely excluded from the whole process.
> > >
> > > If there is a time period for comments on any submissions for
> > > registration those comments should be restricted to nomenclatural
> > > issues only, and any comments of a taxonomic nature should be
> discarded.
> > >
> > > Currently anyone can name what is in their opinion a new taxon, and
> > > whether or not the taxon is regarded as valid or not is in the realm
> > > of taxonomy, not nomenclature. Any new system must continue to
> > > separate these two issues, particularly since with new techniques it
> > > is often found that what was previously considered a junior synonym is
> > > actually a valid separate taxon. It would be incorrect for a
> > > nomenclatural registration to be rejected because the reviewers
> disgree on
> > taxonomic grounds.
> > >
> > > Adam.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Scott Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Skype Number: +55 (11) 3280 0144
Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095


More information about the Taxacom mailing list