[Taxacom] more confusion over Costello et al. (online, 2011)

[Stephen Thorpe]

clearly though, willy nilly citation for the only purpose of promoting taxonomy is not ethical ... any citation must at least be warranted and the cited source should at least say what it?is claimed to say ...
?
descriptive taxonomy *isn't* science in quite the same sense as other science, and there is little point pretending that it is (a single specimen which has 2 hooks on its aedeagus instead of 1 will always be described as a new species, all other things being equal, and there ain't a lot of "science" in that!)
?
just because it isn't science doesn't devalue descriptive taxonomy, as there are many other valuable things that are worth doing, not *just* science
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Alastair Culham <a.culham at reading.ac.uk>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: "TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU. EDU" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "m.costello at auckland.ac.nz" <m.costello at auckland.ac.nz>; "yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be" <yves.samyn at naturalsciences.be> 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] more confusion over Costello et al. (online, 2011)


The Samyn and De Clerk paper contains a very important statement that perhaps deserves highlighting:?

another underestimated part of the problem is that most taxonomists sensu Joppa et al., that is ?those individuals who describe new species? can only devote a fraction of their time on the description of new species. apart from the multitude of tasks that refrains many from inventorying and describing biodiversity, taxonomists also face a hypothesis driven scientific system that is ruled by Impact Factors or other metrics. This reality seduces many taxonomists to publish an ecological, evolutionary or biogeographic story rather than descriptive taxonomic papers.?
The real impediment to the description of new species is not necessarily the availability of people with the knowledge and skills to do it but the fact that it is widely accepted in biological journals that a species name can be used without citing the original description. ?

A new species is an original idea in the same way that a new phylogenetic hypothesis might be - it is formed through the process: data, data analysis, results, discussion, conclusion. ?The hypothesis is: this sample (group of samples) is distinguishable from other known samples at a level that fits a concept of what a species is. ?Clumsy wording and I'm sure someone else can do better. ?The reality is that new species descriptions allow new work in all fields of organismal biology and help improve the understanding of ecology, phylogeny etc. ?

Many readers of this list edit journals. ?I would appeal to those editors to ensure species descriptions are cited to properly acknowledge the science that led to the descriptions. ?That way descriptive taxonomy will have the same standing as other branches of biology and citations, impact factors, H factors and the rest will all follow. ?There is an opportunity to put basic taxonomy back at the top table in science but we need to support ourselves and realise we have some control over that future.?

Action points: cite references to all species you use in a paper and insist as an editor or referee that such citations go in. ?

We are in an under-cited discipline and the solution is at least partially in our own hands.

Alastair

P.S. Catalogue of Life does not claim to be taxonomically authoritative, it is simply trying to offer a platform for component databases to offer their view of a taxonomic group, and to provide a management classification for navigation purposes. ?Wherever there are two taxonomists there will be at least two differing opinions :-)

On 16 May 2012, at 02:24, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:


This new paper: 
>?
>Samyn, Y.; De Clerck, O. 2012: No name, no game. European journal of taxonomy, (10): 1-3. doi: 10.5852/ejt.2012.10
>?
>cites Costello et al. (online 2011), just for the following issue: [quote]Contradicting the findings of Joppa et al. (2011) and using a much broader taxon sampling, which includes many poorly studied groups, Costello et al. (2011) observe that species description has roughly remained constant since the second World War, at least for terrestrial species.[unquote]
>?
>Well I can't say what Costello et al. "observe", but?this is?what they said (in the abstract): [quote]We found that trends in the rate of description of 580,000 marine and terrestrial species, in the taxonomically authoritative World Register of Marine Species and Catalogue of Life databases, were similar until the 1950s. Since then, the relative number of marine to terrestrial species described per year has increased, reflecting the less explored nature of the oceans. From the mid-19th century, the cumulative number of species described has been linear, with the highest number of species described in the decade of 1900, and fewer species described and fewer authors active during the World Wars. There were more authors describing species since the 1960s, indicating greater taxonomic effort. There were fewer species described per author since the 1920s, suggesting it has become more difficult to discover new species.[unquote]
>?
>They (Costello et al.) do say: [quote]Following the World Wars, the number of species described [per year?]?increased, and continued to increase after the 1950s for marine, but not other species[unquote]
>?
>Is it just me, or does none of this make any real sense?? If, as it is claimed,?it has become more difficult to discover new species (based on rates of species description), then the number of species described per year cannot have increased, nor even stayed constant, but must have decreased significantly!! Since the rate of description of marine species has allegedly increased, the rate of description of terrestrial species must have decreased markedly for this to make any sense!!
>?
>To go back to [quote]There were fewer species described per author since the 1920s, suggesting it has become more difficult to discover new species.[unquote]. This is surely a confusion? If they meant per year, rather than per author, then it might be a valid inference, but if they really do mean per author, then that could just be because there are more authors, each describing fewer species, which says absolutely nothing about how hard or otherwise it has become to?discover new species!
>?
>Again, it must be noted that CoL is least "taxonomically authoritative" for terrestrial taxa, and this data bias is highly relevant to the present issue!
>?
>The real issue here is about citation. You can't just go citing publications will nilly for things that it isn't even at all clear they?said! Since citation is used as a value measure for publications (which it shouldn't be), citations should only be made?after careful consideration ...?
>?
>Stephen
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
>(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>(2) a Google search specified as: ?site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom ?your search terms here
>