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

John Noyes j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
Fri Jan 13 04:13:52 CST 2017


Hi Adam,

I totally agree. The danger in what Rich, Doug and others is advocating is that papers will be rejected by those that have an alternative view. Is the proposed system to deal with nomenclatural acts alone or is it intended to comment on the quality of  taxonomy? There  is a danger that it may put all the power in the hands of a few which would inevitably lead to a total breakdown of the system. 

In my view it would be best to sort out the Code (fifth edition) properly first before even considering the "taxon filter" or anything like it. It should be simplified and made as objective as possible.

John
 
John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids 


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Adam Cotton
Sent: 12 January 2017 19:43
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "Taxon Filter" (was Re: Electronic publication)

----- 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.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list