Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Daniel Leo Gustafsson kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com
Wed Apr 16 22:17:48 CDT 2014 

"Naming glory" is nothing but a convenient camouflage for having no good
arguments. The "right" to name taxa that you work with is certainly part of
this issue, but it is not the main part by far, and this excuse for an
argument gets waved around more in these debates than there is actually
support for. The "mihi itch" that Michael refers to seems to affect Hoser
and his kind far more greatly than anyone else.

As I see it, from the state of my own field, this is about preventing
unnecessary work in a discipline that -- for many organism group -- have to
much work to do anyway. That is the main part of my previous post, which
you seem to have ignored in favour of taking the easy way out and
pretending it is mainly about "naming glory". This (my contribution here)
is specifically about your suggestion that the herpetological community
should just resign themselves to Hoser's antics, and have him be the
"naming guy", which is and remains a weird and unhelpful suggestion which
solves nothing and adds additional and unnecessary work for the future,
work that may be delayed precisely because the unmanageable situation with
the Hoseresque authors. As long as these kinds of clowns are not prepared
to do a proper job the first time around, but implicitly relying on others
to do that for them (either prior to, or eventually following, their own
contributions), all they are doing is creating confusion and additional
unnecessary job for others, before flitting away to the next taxon to do
the same again. And your sensible solution is to just let them be and hope
for the best. Must be nice to work with a group of organisms where there is
so little to do that sitting around waiting for someone to create work for
you is a sensible course of action!

Leo


On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>wrote:

> Yes, I can understand your frustration, but Hoser is just an easy target
> to point the finger of blame at, when in reality the issues go well beyond
> Hoser and his ilk. As I have already said, probably several times, bad
> taxonomy and unethical behaviour in science takes many forms, each one of
> which is a continuum. Hoser is at the bad extreme of one of those forms,
> but I am rather acutely aware of others who are just as bad in other ways,
> and yet hide under a cloak of supposed "respectability". They are not such
> easy targets. I still say that if you are lucky enough to be some sort of
> taxonomist as a paid job, then tough luck if you don't get quite all the
> recognition that you think you deserve. Most people don't get any
> recognition in their jobs, just pay. It is not a serious issue. Naming taxa
> is only the beginning, not an end in itself. We need to shift focus more
> into intergrating taxonomy better into ecology and natural history. We need
> to start documenting communities, using taxonomy as a tool. Get over
> "naming glory" ...
>
> Stephen
>
>   *From:* Daniel Leo Gustafsson <kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com>
> *To:* Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> *Cc:* "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 April 2014 11:22 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code
>
>     I don't see how it is more "sensible" to content yourself with
> redescribing species rather than describing species yourself.
>
> I'm currently redescribing lots of species and genera, precisely because
> we used to have a few Hoseresque people in my field, who would name species
> in private letters to colleagues, and somehow manage to convince (some of)
> these colleagues to use these names. Fortunately, none of them were as
> productive as Hoser is, and all of them actually also published some of
> their names in more proper ways (most of these taxa are entirely
> unidentifiable today, though, so their published work was often poor as
> well...). Nevertheless, advising someone to resign themselves to forcing
> future workers (or themselves in the future) to do a lot of work that
> should rightly have been done when the species was first described, is to
> invite tedium, a sense of doing lots of work for little recognition, and
> the endless hassle of trying to figure out what people who have been dead
> since you were born actually meant. Being 40-80 years down the line from
> where the herpetologists are today is not always a fun place to be, and I'm
> still in some ways in a better place than they will be, as at least I know
> that there is no one in my field alive today who behaves as despicably as
> Hoser.
>
> Sensible solutions to this sort of problem includes:
> 1. The solution I outlined in my last mail;
> 2. Trying to force Hoser (and people like him) to actually do things
> properly and stop behaving like a 5-year-old;
> 3. Preventing Hoser (and people like him) from having their work taken
> seriously by the taxonomic community until 2) is achieved;
> 4. Some combination of the above.
>
> I don't see purposefully creating a lot of extra work for the future as
> being sensible in any sense of the word I am aware of.
>
> Hiding behind the fact that his publications has little scientific
> content, only nomenclatorial content, is an unsatisfactory approach. It is
> undeniably the case that nomenclatorial acts are a central part of
> taxonomic work. The names I give to organisms is, or should be, the
> "receipt" that I've actually done some work on these organisms, and if I've
> spent years studying a group and find something new, I'll be damned if I
> will content myself with letting some nobody name these things after his
> mechanic just because he's bearing a grudge and can't behave like an adult.
> If you "can't do the science to back up your opinions", the correct, adult
> way to proceed is to find someone to collaborate with who can, not to turn
> yourself into a scientific *Remora *and publish a blog where you complain
> about those who actually can do the science.
>
> While I certainly agree with you that until the commission has actually
> published something official on this, these things seem to be more or less
> valid (I haven't looked at all his various names, and am in no position to
> judge whether they are) and it's in general tough luck for the
> herpetologists for not naming new taxa in the same publications as their
> phylogenies, I don't see your solution as sensible, and I don't agree that
> this is not a serious issue.
>
> Leo
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Stephen Thorpe <
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>   >What a weird and useless solution. If taxonomists are "measured" by
> their number of publications, allowing Hoser to publish names for groups
> and species discovered by others would diminish the amount of publications
> the discoverers get, lessening their "status" by the very measurement you
> propose. How is that sensible?<
>
> It is sensible because Hoser's publications have little or no scientific
> content, only nomenclatural content, so others can still publish on the
> same taxa, but with actual scientific content (even if it is just better
> descriptions, albeit "redescriptions"). Besides, I don't think Hoser is
> necessarily naming taxa "discovered by others". Hoser probably does
> recognise them himself as new taxa, but just can't do the science properly
> to back up his opinions (he is perhaps, so to speak, scientifically
> impotent).
>
> Neverthess, I do agree with you that systematists should never publish on
> undescribed taxa. It doesn't take much to name them (hell, even Hoser can
> do it!)
>
> Stephen
>
>   *From:* Daniel Leo Gustafsson <kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com>
> *To:* "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 April 2014 10:29 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code
>
> What a weird and useless solution. If taxonomists are "measured" by their
> number of publications, allowing Hoser to publish names for groups and
> species discovered by others would diminish the amount of publications the
> discoverers get, lessening their "status" by the very measurement you
> propose. How is that sensible?
>
> An actually sensible solution would be not to publish any phylogenies that
> include any novel (at least) genus-or-above groupings without naming and
> describing these, with only enough detail to be valid, in the same
> publication. Submit this only when a more detailed morphological paper has
> been made ready and can be submitted (and hopefully published) more or less
> simultaneously. This will mean that all taxa will already have names when
> Hoser (or anyone else) can get their hands on them, and if not, will at
> least minimize the time between publication of the phylogenies from which
> Hoser harvests new taxa and the publication of descriptions of these taxa
> by the people who actually discovered them. It must take some considerable
> time to write those rants against the government and other taxonomists that
> Hoser pads out his publications with, so the shorter amount of time that
> passes between publications the better.
>
> This solution will take a bit longer, but still (theoretically) result in
> the same amount of publications, with the added potential benefit that the
> new names will generally be referred to publications that are more widely
> read.
>
> Leo
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Stephen Thorpe
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>wrote:
>
> > Wolfgang,
> > You eloquent words hide your true motives to some extent, me thinks! It
> is
> > clear to me that your primary frustration is based on Hoser preempting
> taxa
> > which may turn out to be valid and cheaply creating names for these taxa
> > which (rather misleadingly) carry his name as taxon authority. I can
> > understand your frustration about this, but I don't see it as a serious
> > issue. After all, no taxonomist gets paid by the number of new taxa they
> > describe. Instead they are measured, rightly or wrongly, by their
> citation
> > rate and number of publications. If you were completely sensible, you
> would
> > just let Hoser be "the name guy", freeing you of doing the naming
> yourself.
> > You can focus on publishing really high quality redescriptions,
> > phylogenetic analyses, etc., etc. Hoser isn't going to get any real
> benefit
> > from any citations his publications get, as he is not employed in
> academia
> > (maybe he can promote himself!)
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Wolfgang Wuster <w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk>
> > To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, 17 April 2014 6:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code
> >
> >
> > Well, I certainly commiserate with the coleopterologists out there.
> >
> > However, it does beg the deeper question of why on Earth we are putting
> up
> > with a system that inflicts tens of thousands of names emanating from
> > unscientific outputs upon us. Is this really the best that a system with
> > "standards, sense and stability for animal names" as its aims can do? And
> > should we be accepting "because that's how it's always been" as the sole
> > justification for tolerating it forever more?
> >
> > I'm afraid I find that level of resignation immeasurably depressing. And
> I
> > envy bacterial taxonomists?.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <
> > taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Michael A. Ivie <
> > mivie at montana.edu>
> > Sent: 16 April 2014 19:06
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code
> >
> > OK, everyone step back and breath.  This is not that simple.  How much
> > worse is AJH than Calodema?  How much worse is Calodema than M?langes
> > Exotico-Entomologiques? Than L'?change?  Those last 2 journals,
> > privately published by the author of tens of thousands of poorly
> > documented species were proposed for suppression decades ago, and that
> > was voted down.  What about the allegedly back-dated "Cicindelidae:
> > Bulletin of Worldwide Research"?  If I remember correctly, some
> > Scandinavian acarologist who published a large number of very poor
> > descriptions ordered his types all destroyed upon his death.
> > Herpetologists have probably never heard of these other journals/cases
> > and don't care about them, but the the same applies by
> > non-herpetologists about AJH.  Once you decide that AJH is so bad it has
> > to be placed on the list of rejected works in its entirety, what about
> > the next-worst?  And, the next worst?  Every sub-discipline has a
> > journal or person that they think is the worst.  This proposal will
> > never pass, with good, practical reasons.
> >
> > Today, declaring an entire journal with a living editor to be placed on
> > the list of rejected publications will do nothing.  Next week a newly
> > named journal will appear and revalidate all the names. Rejecting the
> > names one by one would be a better solution, although I do not see
> > anything to keep them from being repeated next week as well.  As for
> > extending the ban into the future, to invalidate works not yet published
> > is indeed censorship.  We call it a gag rule.  I am wondering if any
> > work by a living author has ever been placed on the rejected list
> > contrary to their wishes?  Has it ever been done that names proposed by
> > a certain person are placed on the rejected list for simply being named
> > by that person, both those already published and those that may be
> > published in the future?  When a work is placed on the rejected list, a
> > reason is given, Geoffroy for not being consistently binomial, etc.
> > What reason will be given for AJH?  "Unpopular Editor" would be pretty
> > weak in a 100 years.
> >
> > If coleopterists can survive 38,000 Pic names, herpetologists can
> > survive a mere 600 Hoser names.  And yes, the Macrochelys is valid. Live
> > with it.
> >
> > Mike (who swore he was not getting into this)
> >
> > On 4/16/2014 1:16 AM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> > > Hold on, it would still solve many of the problems, as he cannot
> publish
> > again giving the names the same priority. It would at least solve the
> > Macrochelys case.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > > On Wed, 16/4/14, Philipp Wagner <philipp.wagner.zfmk at uni-bonn.de>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code
> > >  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Wolfgang Wuster"
> <
> > w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >  Received: Wednesday, 16 April, 2014, 6:41 AM
> > >
> > >  > All they need do is deem his
> > >  journal AJH to be an invalid publication.
> > >
> > >  That would be great - but it would not stop him. In a time
> > >  where it is so extremly easy to run a self-published
> > >  e-journal he would just rename it and publish everything
> > >  again.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > ________________________________
> > >  > From: Wolfgang Wuster <w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk>
> > >  > To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> > >  <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >  Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2014 6:10 PM
> > >  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the
> > >  Code
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > ________________________________________
> > >  > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >  <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >  on behalf of Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
> > >  > Sent: 15 April 2014 23:12
> > >  > To: Stephen Thorpe; Doug Yanega; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the
> > >  Code
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >> But to get back to the crux of the matter. Some on
> > >  the list want to nix
> > >  >> what Hoser has done because they claim the specimen
> > >  (with a specimen
> > >  >> number) that he specifically designated "did not
> > >  exist". That is hogwash.
> > >  >> And is bordering on censorship, in my opinion.
> > >  >
> > >  > I think we need to stop this talk of censorship.
> > >  >
> > >  > According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "to
> > >  censor" is defined as "to examine books, movies, letters,
> > >  etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be
> > >  offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc."
> > >  >
> > >  > Nobody is proposing to do such a thing.
> > >  >
> > >  > However, there is a difference between the right to
> > >  free expression and the right to be taken seriously. The
> > >  former is (in my book) absolute, the latter does not exist.
> > >  The problem is that the letter of the Code seeks to bestow
> > >  that non-existing latter right on the authors of names
> > >  irrespective of merit. That's what many who consider
> > >  themselves scientists first and nomenclaturists second have
> > >  a problem with. However, that does not constitute
> > >  censorship.
> > >  >
> > >  > Cheers,
> > >  >
> > >  > Wolfgang
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity
> > >  No. 1141565
> > >  >
> > >  > Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd
> > >  gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w
> > >  defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato
> > >  (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy
> > >  gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y
> > >  neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi
> > >  beidio a defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a
> > >  gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r
> > >  sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn
> > >  cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor
> > >  yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn
> > >  rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi
> > >  ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad
> > >  y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr
> > >  o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol
> > >  Bangor.
> > >  >
> > >  > This email and any attachments may contain confidential
> > >  material and is solely for the use of the intended
> > >  recipient(s). If you have received this email in error,
> > >  please notify the sender immediately and delete this email.
> > >  If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use,
> > >  retain or disclose any information contained in this email.
> > >  Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do
> > >  not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor
> > >  University does not guarantee that this email or any
> > >  attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless
> > >  expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this
> > >  email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of
> > >  authorised signatories is available from the Bangor
> > >  University Finance Office.
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > _______________________________________________
> > >  > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> > >  >
> > >  > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> > >  > _______________________________________________
> > >  > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> > >  >
> > >  > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> > >
> > >  ----------------------------------------
> > >  Dr. Philipp Wagner
> > >  [http://www.philippwagner.net/]
>
> > >
> > >  Research Associate:
> > >  Department of Biology
> > >  Villanova University
> > >  800 Lancaster Avenue
> > >  Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085, USA
> > >
> > >  Home Institution:
> > >  Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig
> > >  Adenauerallee 160
> > >  D-53113 Bonn
> > >  Deutschland
> > >
> > >  +49 228 9122 254
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> > >
> > > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> >
> > --
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> > Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
> >
> > Montana Entomology Collection
> > Marsh Labs, Room 50
> > 1911 West Lincoln Street
> > NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
> > Montana State University
> > Bozeman, MT 59717
> > USA
> >
> > (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> > (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> > mivie at montana.edu
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565
> >
> > Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys
> > deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y
> > cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon
> > trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges.
> Os
> > na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio,
> cadw
> > neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu
> > safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid
> yn
> > cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu
> bod
> > y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn
> > ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr
> > e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae
> > rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol
> Bangor.
> >
> > This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is
> > solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received
> this
> > email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this
> email.
> > If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or
> > disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions
> are
> > solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of
> Bangor
> > University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any
> > attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated
> > in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form
> a
> > binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the
> > Bangor University Finance Office.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
>
>
>
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list