[Taxacom] Why stability?
Robin Leech
releech at telus.net
Thu Apr 30 09:18:10 CDT 2015
2015
Stephen, This is starting to turn into a bun fight. The specialists I know
have hundreds and hundreds of species
being able to to be IDed with a mere glance. They have the literature to
confirm that the one with which they have
little experience is, or is not, a new species, or is an introduced species
or a species far from its known distribution.
If I did not know the families, and many genera of spiders, I could set
about to describing a new genus/species or whatever
in perfect ignorance and bliss, all the time thinking that I have done a
good job. Many species that pass through my hands
are passed on to one or more good buds. In turn, the feedback is, "Yup, I
agree that it is Xus yus." Very occasionally I
receive a reply, "Jeez, never seen it before."
The point here is that we all work cooperatively together, otherwise we
would have an anarchistic situation.
I will send you an article on Spiders of the Canadian Prairies, pubublished
last year, which was a multi-leveled cooperative
publication. The chapter on spiders is one chapter in a set of 4 books on
the Arthropods of the Canadian Prairies.
What we don't need or want is someone who does not play well in the sandbox.
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: April-29-15 8:27 PM
To: Robin Leech
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability?
Indeed. Was it just me, or was there a definite assumption by some people on
the list that IDs are always done using a publication?
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 30/4/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability?
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Received: Thursday, 30 April, 2015, 2:24 PM
And, alternatively, much
of the ID info is in the head of one or two specialists, and is not yet in
the literature. And it may never be put there.
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent:
April-29-15 8:18 PM
To: Taxacom; JF Mate
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
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.
_______________________________________________
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