[Taxacom] Why stability?
Weakley, Alan
weakley at bio.unc.edu
Thu Apr 30 09:47:25 CDT 2015
2015
Surely the issue is not whether one IDs the species by "recognition", a key, a web-based tool, or whatever, but providing a clear indication of the "taxonomic standard" being applied in the identification (and therefore providing additional and more explicit evidence as to the actual meaning of the name applied, that is not provided by the name itself -- unless it happens to be the holotype, in which case there is no ambiguity).
The expert who glances at a specimen and says "oh that is Aus Qus" is implicitly or explicitly applying a taxonomic standard, whether or not (s)he hauls out a book to make the ID. The thought process is, "I know that is Genus A, my current understanding of the taxonomy within Genus A is that there are 27 species, and that is species 23, to whit: "Aus Qus". That "current understanding" is usually based on a particular published work (but may be more complicated, esp. if the expert is the actively working "primary expert" on the group). The great bulk of IDs made in herbaria, museums, protected area checklists, ecological studies etc. though ARE EXPLICITLY BASED on a particular published and accessible publication, and it would be of great benefit to explicitly state that as disambiguation of the naked name. A simple, easy, helpful practice.
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Robin Leech
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:18 AM
To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; 'Taxacom List'
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
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.
_______________________________________________
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