[Taxacom] Why stability?
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Apr 30 17:27:24 CDT 2015
2015
Hi Rich,
I think your confusion may stem from not keeping in mind the dialectic context in which I made my comments. I was responding to others who had suggested that authors should always cite the publication used for the identification of any species that they mention. Basically, their motivation is probably merely to increase citation rates in taxonomy. My comment was intended to point out that, in a great many cases, identifications are not made using any specific publication, even identifications down to the species level. Many names do not have any well defined "taxonomic concepts" associated with them, but may nevertheless be names for distinctive species which are easily identified by direct comparison of specimens (given a bit of experience with the group). For something of an example, I'm sure you can recognise a giraffe if you see one, but you probably cannot point to any well defined "taxonomic concept" (or, if you can, you didn't rely on it to make
the identification). In many cases, identifications may be based on a very complex set of things, including several publications and specimens examined, which would not be easy or even possible to spell out as "sensu ..." or "sec ..." Sometimes, for example, one does use a publication to identify a specimen, but the key may give a different result to the description, and both may give a different result to comparing a specimen with the illustrations in the publication. Identification is more of a "wholistic" thing, taking into account all available evidence. Also, your idea of citing something like "sensu Person who identified it for me" wouldn't count for citation metrics, so really isn't what this dialectic was originally about.
Cheers,
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 1/5/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability?
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'JF Mate'" <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>, "'Taxacom'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Friday, 1 May, 2015, 9:57 AM
Hi Stephen,
I'm very confused about
your statements on this thread. This issue is not
about "basing specimen identifications on
publications", as you seem to keep
coming back to. This thread is about more
explicitly representing taxon
names in the
context of a taxon concept. Specimen identifications
are
certainly one aspect of taxonomy where
this practice is valuable, but it
applies
more generally to *any* references to taxon names.
Let's start with your
example of Homo sapiens. Yes Linnaeus initially
established the name, and when he did so he had
in mind a taxonomic
circumscription of
organisms to which he would apply that name to. We
could
make a citation to "Homo sapiens
Linnaeus 1758 sensu Linneaus 1758"; but as
you say his description was wanting; and
indeed, his circumscription may not
perfectly coincide with the concept of
"Homo sapiens" that a modern
taxonomist would like to refer to (e.g., many
more species of Homo and
related genera were
established from fossil material after Linnaeus, so
it's
not clear which of these Linnaeus
would have included in his
circumscription). So, you could certainly
refer to "Homo sapiens Linnaeus
1758
sensu Linneaus 1758"; but I doubt most modern
researchers would do so.
Instead, a better citation might be something
like "Homo sapiens Linnaeus
1758 sensu
Wilson & Reeder 2005". This circumscription
included a number of
synonyms within it
(see:
http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id53),
which gives us a somewhat more precise idea of
the set of organisms implied
by the name
"Homo sapiens".
You also made reference to many species that
need to be identified, but for
which only
one or a few old taxonomic works are available. I
don't
disagree. But I'm not sure
what your point is about why this has any impact
on the practice of consistently citing
"sensu" references.
Let's take the example of "Aus bus
Smith 1850". Let's suppose not a single
published work ever cited this name since its
original description, in any
context
whatsoever. Fair enough -- there are likely many such names
out
there.
Now, in 2015, you come across a specimen in a
Museum that you feel confident
is
conspecific with the type specimen Smith 1850 assigned to
the species
"Aus bus". Are you
saying that you might possibly have a different taxon
concept in mind than when Smith 1850 first
established the name? If so,
then what is
this difference based on? Keep in mind that no one has
ever
published any reference to this species
since Smith's original publication.
Yet
somehow you ae confident that the taxon concept that you
wish to ascribe
to the name "Aus
bus" is different from the concept implied by Smith in
his
original 1850 publication.
I certainly agree this
situation is possible (especially for taxonomists who
are actively working on a major revision of a
group, and have looked at
thousands of
specimens, etc.) But I don't think it's quite as
common a
situation as you make it out to
be. And even in these cases, there is
nothing stopping you from declaring it as
"Aus bus Smith 1850 sensu Thorpe
2015". There is no requirement that the
information following the "sensu"
must be citation to a publication. The
purpose is just to anchor the name
to a
particular usage of that name, to give some greater clarity
for what
taxon concept is implied by that
particular usage of the name. Granted, it
makes a LOT more sense, to cite a publication,
if and when one is available
-- because that
means everyone has access to it (only a limited number of
people have access to the content inside
Stephen Thorpe's brain...)
One more point -- in these cases where there
have been few, if any
subsequent treatments
of a particular name, the need to pin down a usage of
a name to one particular concept is much lower,
because there is much less
potential
confusion about what concept is implied. The importance of
the
"sensu" qualifier is
increasingly important in cases where there ARE
multiple competing concepts for a name (some
stricto, some lato, etc.). If
there are
multiple competing concepts, then there are likely to be
publications attached to alternate
circumscriptions.
So,
it's sort of a nice self-correcting situation: Cases
with the fewest
options for citing as
"sensu" also have the least need for it.
Aloha,
Rich
>
-----Original Message-----
> From:
Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:24 AM
> To: 'JF Mate'; 'Taxacom';
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
>
> Rich,
>
> I suspect that you
have already invested too much time and effort in this
> "sensu" (or "sec")
notion to want to backtrack now, but some of what is
being
> said on the subject
just isn't true! There are a great many species,
which
are
> routinely
identified for various purposes, but for which there is
no
publication
> upon
which the IDs are based. That is an undeniable fact, like it
or not!
Even in
> botany
this is true. Botanists here routinely identify exotic
plants
growing in
>
cultivation in gardens and parks, and there are often no
modern taxonomic
> treatments of the
species concerned. If one were to adopt a "sensu"
or
"sec"
>
system across the board, it would add greatly to complexity,
while adding
little
> or
nothing of any use. It might get a few more citations for a
few more
> taxonomic publications, but
that's about it, and I don't care about that.
What
> publication do you
suggest that we cite for identification of Homo
sapiens?
> Linnaeus'
original description is pretty useless.
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 1/5/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
> To:
"'JF Mate'" <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>,
"'Taxacom'"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Friday, 1 May, 2015, 6:05
AM
>
> Errr....
yeah. What he
> said.
>
> Rich
>
> >
-----Original
> Message-----
> > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of
> >
JF Mate
> > Sent: Wednesday, April
29, 2015 3:15 PM > To: Taxacom > Subject:
> Re: [Taxacom] Why stability?
> >
> > 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