[Taxacom] Why stability?
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Apr 30 13:14:41 CDT 2015
2015
Yeah! What he said, too! Both of Alan's posts to this thread. And Jason's too!
:-)
Rich
[OK, I'll shut-up now....]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Weakley, Alan
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:47 AM
> To: Robin Leech; 'Stephen Thorpe'; 'Taxacom List'
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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