[Taxacom] Why stability?
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Apr 29 21:17:47 CDT 2015
2015
I am merely saying that in lots of cases (not all cases, but lots), species cannot be identified from the literature, so there is no publication to cite for the ID. If there is a suitable publication, and it was used for the ID, then it may make some sense to cite it. My point was just that this is only going to be possible some of the time, that's all.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 30/4/15, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 30 April, 2015, 1:37 PM
"Hence there is no
publication to cite for the identification."
Here is the kernel of
inaccuracy. I have (and I suspect most people in
Taxacom do as well, either in cellulose or
digital) a large collection
of things called
books which are called upo as our external brain
hard-driveI. No just for Europe or North
America, poor in species as
they may be, but
for many areas in the world. There are many groups
without modern keys, I grant you that, but when
keys are available,
citing them is a useful
for those who will come after. In fact NZ has
a number of modern keys covering many
Coleoptera groups (can´t comment
on what I
don´t know). Are you tellng me you don´t use them?
Jason
On 30 April 2015 at 03:21,
Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> Sorry Jason, but I was not
incorrect! As I said, many (perhaps most) species are not
identifiable from the literature. Most insect IDs (at least
in this country) are done by somebody directly comparing
specimens to already identified specimens in collections.
Typically, the only thing published is a useless original
description from the 1800s or something. Hence there is no
publication to cite for the identification.
"Experience" enters the issue because the result
of comparing specimens depends on the experience of the
person doing the comparison, i.e. a newbee will typically
make lots of mistakes.
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 30/4/15, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
> To:
"Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Thursday, 30 April, 2015, 1:15
PM
>
> Sorry Stephen
but this is
> incorrect. Everybody´s
"experience" is a
>
combination of actual experience (burning the
> midnight oil comparing
> own material against
> identified specimens in a museum or
advice from
> colleagues or mentors
that we have internalised
> and made
our own for
> example) and
> literature. By putting your name on the
I.D. label and
> the year you tell
others more or less at what
> stage of
your experience
> you where at when
> you attached the label. The
"sec" is to indicate
> on
> which authors you rely on (let´s
face
> it, nobody is an expert in
every
> group). For
> example, in Europe if you work on
scarabs you rely on
> Baraud and
Balthasar most of the time. In 50
>
years we may have
> different ones but
it
> would be helpful to know which one
you owned or
> used most often or a
that time. As a practical
> example
think of
> Aphodius fimetarius.
Since
> 2001 I write "sensu Wilson
2001" to make it
> clear that the
concept I am using acknowledges
> the
specific
> distinctiveness of
pedellus.
>
> As to
citing the authority, I
> see it as
part of the binomial. It makes
>
communication more accurate.
>
> Jason
>
> On 30 April 2015 at 01:15, Stephen
Thorpe
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
> > What
Mary said is, IMHO,
> somewhat mixed up
and confused! One should cite the authors
> of the original combination primarily
for nomenclatural (not
> taxonomic
reasons). Botany confuses the issue by making
> combinations a nomenclatural matter.
Zoology treats them
> (almost entirely)
as taxonomic. The "reference used for
> the identification" is another
matter altogether. Most
> IDs published
in ecological studies are done by people
> ("experts"), who, like myself,
identify taxa based
> more on
experience/memory with relevant collections and
> familiarity with the local fauna, rather
than by way of a
> specific
publication. Many species can only be identified by
> a historical chain of IDs, hopefully
involving comparision
> to the type at
some stage along the way. They cannot be
> identified from the literature.
> >
> >
Stephen
> >
>
>
> >
>
--------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 30/4/15, Mary Barkworth
<Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject:
>
Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
> >
To:
> "JF Mate" <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>,
> "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Received: Thursday, 30 April,
2015,
> 10:51 AM
>
>
> > IMO. It
> is not the lack
>
> of a catchy name that
> has
prevented the practice of citing
>
>
> the reference used for
identification in giving a
>
scientific
> > name but the
insistence by
> taxonomists that one
should cite
> > the
> original author(s) of the combination
and that this
> > provides
accuracy of interpretation. It
> was
not until the
> > Vienna
Botanical
> Congress of 2005 (or
thereabouts) that the
> > wording
the botanical code read "In
>
publications,
> > particularly
those
> dealing with taxonomy and
nomenclature,
> > it **may** be
desirable, even when no
>
bibliographic
> > reference to
the
> protologue is made, to cite the
author(s)
> > of the name
concerned ...". Before
> that it
read as if
> > one always had
to
> cite the authors - and all journal
and
> > book editors wanted the
works they
> published seen to be
good
> > science so
> they required citation of the original
authors
> > and people that became
faculty said it
> was necessary too.
> >
> > So we
have to change a culture. That
> is
> > always difficult. I have
been
> told I do not understand
> > nomenclature
> for arguing that one should cite
the
> > reference used to
determine the name (a
> flora or some
such).
> > The objections
> that I have heard are that someone is
simply
> > using the name they
were told by someone
> else or that
they
> > know the plant so
> well they do not know whether it has
ever
> > had another concept, or
that they are
> using the concept
they
> > have
> developed.
> >
One reason I like the
> > Symbiota
data entry form is that it
> provides
for citing the
> > reference
> used (although perhaps it should be
visible by
> > default?) but
taxonomists have spent
> decades
convincing
> > people that, to
be
> good science, the original authors
of
> >
>
scientific names should be cited. We should not be
> surprised
> >
if it takes a similar
> length of time
to change the practice.
> > Do
those of you that are journal editors
>
ask for information
> > as to
the
> reference used for an
identification or for the
> >
original authors of the combination.
>
> Mary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
Celebrating 28
> years of
> > Taxacom in 2015.
> >
>
_______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Celebrating 28
years of
> Taxacom in 2015.
>
_______________________________________________
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
Celebrating 28 years of
Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list