[Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy

Tue May 10 01:07:14 CDT 2016

Fair enough. I don't expect the problems to "go away" any more than the police force expect crime to just go away, but it doesn't stop them from trying.

S

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 10/5/16, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "taxacom" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Geoffrey Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 Received: Tuesday, 10 May, 2016, 5:46 PM

 Not at
 all. My point is that there will always be "ineffectual/lame peer review, or
 to reviewers who think that some authors don't need to
 have their submissions scrutinised much, while other authors
 do, and base this on political rather than scientific
 considerations" since there is no police force or
 dictatorship to ensure perfection. Yes, by all means
 challenge problems you see, but don't expect them to
 ever go way (unless one day there will be
 "intelligent" computers that will assess all
 papers and be able to cross reference every nuance and
 combination of rules to provide the perfect kind of
 evaluation you and everyone else might wish
 for).
 John Grehan
 On Tue, May 10, 2016 at
 12:12 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 Yeah, so
 let's all go back to sleep and let it continue to happen
 unchallenged!

 --------------------------------------------

 On Tue, 10/5/16, John Grehan
 <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On
 typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy

  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

  Cc: "taxacom" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 "Geoffrey Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>

  Received: Tuesday, 10 May, 2016, 3:54 PM

  Life is

  unfair.

  John

  Grehan

  On Mon,

  May 9, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

  wrote:

  Hi

  Geoff,

  I am rather more concerned with the general issues than
 this

  specific case. The general issues go very far beyond
 just

  Diptera. What irks me the most, quite frankly, is that if
 I

  try to publish anything, it gets nitpicked to death by

  editors and reviewers, but some other people appear to
 be

  able to publish any old garbage unchallenged! I would
 have

  hoped that someone from 14 authors, at least two
 reviewers,

  or the editorial team for the journal might have picked
 up

  on the, as you put it, "misrepresentations of the

  Code" and "obvious factual errors"!
 Journals

  tend not to alter manuscripts after they have been
 published

  in the online first edition version of record, and to do
 so

  could pave the way to even bigger problems! One worry
 is

  that people who are not themselves fluent with the Code
 will

  tend to believe 14 authors over the 3 original authors
 of

  the new fly, and so confusion and division will result.

  IMHO, publishers of scientific journals ought to steer
 clear

  of opportunistic opinion pieces like the present case. It
 is

  not science and it has no place in a scientific journal.
 I

  don't know what the solution is to the problem of

  ineffectual/lame peer review, or to reviewers who think
 that

  some authors don't need to have their submissions

  scrutinised much, while other authors do, and base this
 on

  political rather than scientific considerations.

  Cheers,

  Stephen

  --------------------------------------------

  On Tue, 10/5/16, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>

  wrote:

   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article:
 On

  typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy

   To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

   Received: Tuesday, 10 May, 2016, 3:00 PM

   Hi Stephen,

   You could write privately to the lead author, if you

  haven't

   already (I'm

   resisting involving him here by cc).

   I don't see much wrong with the general
 sentiments

  expressed

   in the

   article. However the two sentences top of page 3

   misrepresent the code.

   Take them away and the authors are just expressing

  opinions

   on taxonomic

   practice. It may be possible to change an obvious

  factual

   error as the

   article is not yet in a print issue. Or the authors

  could

   withdraw the

   article and resubmit.

   Geoff

   ________________________________________

   From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

   on behalf of John

   Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>

   Sent: 09 May 2016 14:39

   To: Stephen Thorpe

   Cc: samarsha at uoguelph.ca;

   taxacom

   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article:
 On

  typeless

   species and

   the perils of fast taxonomy

   Stephen,

   Why not write to the journal and volunteer your

  expertise?

   John Grehan

   On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

   wrote:

   > Hi all,

   >

   > I'm furious over this new article:

   > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12180/abstract

   >

   > They say: However, according to Article 16.4 of

  the

   ICZN (1999), only

   > holotypes of extant taxa should be housed in a

  public

   scientific

   > collection. Marleyimyia xycolopae is obviously
 an

   extant species.

   > Accordingly, its type specimen should be deposited
 in

  a

   scientific

   > collection ... In short, Marshall and Evenhuis

   published a nomen nudum

   > because their discovery is backed only by a

  photograph

   and not by a type

   > specimen.

   >

   > Art. 16.4 actually says:

   > 16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are
 extant

   specimens, by a

   > statement of intent that they will be (or are)

   deposited in a collection

   > and a statement indicating the name and location

  of

   that collection.

   >

   > Extant SPECIMENS, NOT extant SPECIES!!!

   >

   > The argument offered against the availability of

  the

   name Marleyimyia

   > xycolopae is clearly based on a gross

  misinterpretation

   of the Code, and is

   > makes the whole article by Santos et al. utterly

   pointless! I am extremely

   > alarmed that nobody out of 14 authors, at least

  two

   reviewers and an

   > editorial team from a supposedly reputable
 journal

   could not catch this

   > fundamental error before it went to print. Peer

  review

   just doesn't work,

   > it would seem.

   >

   > Stephen

   _______________________________________________

   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

   Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in

  2016.

  _______________________________________________

  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

  Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in
 2016.