[Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue May 10 18:04:45 CDT 2016
2016
Mike,
I know that you take great pleasure in disagreeing with me on Taxacom (all part of the fun), but you appear to have read my words as the polar opposite of what I wrote! I (as basically an amateur myself) fully agree that there are some excellent amateurs and some shoddy professionals. That was my whole point! I was trying to say that some professionals are not of the same opinion, which may be why they object to description by photo. I wasn't agreeing with them, I was disagreeing with them. So what the heck are you trying to say??? Just for the benefit of those who don't know, actually Sharp was a professional (with a PhD) and Broun was more or less an amateur (and lacked formal qualifications). Sharp was better in this case, but Broun was OK too.
Cheers, Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/5/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> 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: Wednesday, 11 May, 2016, 10:37 AM
Stephen,
Limiting myself to your point
#2, at least in North America and Central
Europe, entomology has been well served by many
truly excellent amateur
taxonomists who are
welcomed by the professionals as equals worthy of
respect and admiration. I am not
talking about the likes of LeConte
and Horn
back in the 19th century, but those alive and active
today.
There are also professionals that
lack that respect and admiration by
their
peers. Even in your neck of the woods, Broun was a
professional,
Sharp was an amateur. That
chestnut simply does not fly.
Mike
On
5/10/2016 4:30 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Cris said: "I also think there is a
troubling political side to this case. All 14 authors are
from the same mega-diverse country"
>
> My reply: Yes, I
think you are correct that there is a troubling political
side to this case, but nothing to do with Brazil. In BZN
73(1)(2016), there is another hard-hitting critique of the
controversial new fly description, this time by three Swiss
(Switzerland not being particularly
"mega-dicerse"!), who appear to have a similar
agenda, though they conduct their criticisms somewhat more
collegially. Reading between the lines, I detect two
possible underlying concerns which may be motivating the
reaction against holotypes designated via photos:
>
> (1) This might
endanger continued funding to museums which look after type
specimens; and
>
> (2)
This might encourage amateurs to describe new taxa.
>
> Well, I'm not
sure what I think about (1). I don't think that it is a
big deal. Instead of insisting upon a global ban of
description from photos, one might better lobby to the
effect that description by specimen is better, which I
don't think anyone denies! Also, I very much doubt that
funding responds in such a simple way to single factors
influencing how taxonomy is carried out in practice.
>
> As for (2), it COULD
BE a good thing! It all depends on whether or not the
taxonomy is done adequately. It is way too simple to think
that all and only professional taxonomists can do taxonomy
adequately. I suspect that it really has more to do with
control. Traditional professional taxonomists just can't
handle the thought of losing control over who can do
taxonomy, and who can have access to types, etc.
>
> The most important
thing is that arguments for or against are based on good
reasons, not misinterpretations/manipulations, etc. Even the
BZN article misrepresents the disadvantages of photos. Their
same argument could be just as easily applied to argue
against the description of new taxa from fossils or
non-perfect specimens in some way. A determined faker, as I
already pointed out, is by no means limited to photographic
manipulation!
>
> And
there is also the issue of peer review: again I ask how 14
authors, at least 2 reviewers and an editorial team for a
supposedly good journal all managed to let such basic errors
slip through?!
>
>
Cheers, Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 10/5/16, Cristian Ruiz Altaba
<cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: 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 at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Tuesday, 10 May,
2016, 6:29 PM
>
>
> Hi Stephen,Well, I for one
am
> prepared to say
publicly that photographs are evidence. So
> we are two already. A reply
should be written.
> The
point on faking evidence is not mine. It is in
> Santos et al, when they argue
that an image can be
> manipulated (and not a
holotype, alas). I should add that
> too many taxonomists naïvely
think that photographs are
> superior to drawings. It
depends on intention, of course.
> However, at least in
malacology, it seems most reviewers
> prefer a fuzzy photograph
over a crisp drawing --obviously
> ignoring the art of
Photoshop. And what is taxonomy about,
> altogether. (A nice path is
in the works of Lou Grande, who
> depicts complex fossils with
good photographs side-by-side
> with accurate drawings of the
same specimen).
> I also
think there is a troubling political side to
> this case. All 14 authors are
from the same mega-diverse
> country. They want to stress
the need for support towards
> museums. Yet, they got a red
herring instead. It is
> worrisome that they do not
accept the possibility of
> expanding their taxonomic
tools, even when it is perfectly
> clear that the pace of
(old-fashioned) description is orders
> of magnitude below the
(current) estimated rate of
> extinction. This is a
globally relevant issue.
> All the
> best,Cristian
>
>
>
> -----Stephen Thorpe
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
ha escrit: -----
>
> Per a: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> Cristian Ruiz Altaba <cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es>
>
> De: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Data: 10/05/2016 12:43AM
>
> a/c: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Assumpte: Re: [Taxacom]
I'm furious over
> article: On typeless species
and the perils of fast
> taxonomy
>
>
>
> Hi Cris,
> Judging from the off-list
replies,
> this issue would
seem to be a "sensitive" one,
> with all who replied in full
agreement with me, yet not
> prepared to say so publicly.
So far, it seems like only
> dipterists have taken notice,
but the taxonomic issue are,
> of course, quite general. It
is odd that nobody is forcing
> anyone to describe new
species from photos, yet Santos et
> al. seem to want to impose a
ban on anyone doing it! There
> are certain parallels with
homophobia! As for the photo
> faking argument, I think you
may have slightly misunderstood
> their point? Yes, drawings
and verbal descriptions can also
> be faked, possibly even
easier than faking photos, but their
> point was that a preserved
type specimen is there to be
> checked against descriptions
and illustrations, which cannot
> be done if all that you have
are photos. This is true, but
> in practice a determined
faker would have many options
> regardless. They could
deliberately damage or even destroy
> the holotype, and the
availability of the new name would be
> unaffected, with only the
description and illustrations left
> to use for ID. They could
refuse access to the holotype if
> they also had control of the
type repository, or they could
> simply stay quiet and hope
that nobody bothered to check.
> So, while the lack of a
checkable specimen is one reason
> against description from
photo only, it needs to be weighed
> against reasons for. Also, a
specimen and even species is
> only as good as the
associated data, and collecting data is
> very easy to fake, with
little or no way to confirm. So the
> possibility of faking photos
doesn't really introduce
> anything new.
>
> Cheers,
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> On Mon, 9/5/16, Cristian Ruiz
Altaba
> <cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es>
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 at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
Received: Monday, 9 May, 2016, 6:46 PM
>
>
> Hi
> Stephen,The paper is
indeed
>
> dangerous. I have read it and feel
just the way you do.
> Indeed, the
main issue is that the authors
> believe they know
>
>
very well the Code... when in fact they obviously
> don't.
>
>
>
Santos et al. want to make a point in support of
> "old-but-not-outdated
taxonomy".
> However,
they
>
> also want to dress this quarrel with
a legal varnish.
>
>
>
Particularly infuriating is their invocation of
> Fontcuberta's photographic work.
He has
> played a lot
>
>
with the illusion of truth in photography. He even has
> a
>
book portraying himself as a follower of
> Osama Bin
>
>
Laden, his whole biography with numerous
> photographs...
> almost all of which turn
> out to be false. The only
real one
>
> portrays what seems a joke: a bottle
of something
> called
> Mecca-Cola. His point is simple
yet
> worthwhile --it
>
>
doesn't matter what the support might be, what counts
> is
>
the genuine sincerity in the message.
> This we know as the
>
>
Golde Rule, which holds all of science together. Surely
> we
>
all could point at one paper at least
> where taxonomic
>
>
characters were drawn or reproduced with mistakes (if
> not intentional fake). Why should we
suspect
> that the
>
>
photographs by Marshall and Evenhuis are a fake, while
> taking all works produced by all
Brazilian
> dipeterologists
>
> as
fault-proof?
> So what is the point
in
> Santos et al? Hard to
tell. At
>
> any rate, they end up advocating for
field
> work. Yet, that
>
> is
exactly how you are most likely to photograph
> unknown
>
>
species.
> I do think that this
paper
> deserves an answer.
May I
>
> propose a joint reply by several
members of this list?
> All the
>
>
best,Cristian
> Cristian
> R. Altaba
>
EvoCog,
> University of
the
>
> Balearic Islands
>
>
>
>
-----"Taxacom"
>
>
<taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
ha escrit:
> -----
>
>
> Per a:
> <neale at bishopmuseum.org>,
> <samarsha at uoguelph.ca>
>
>
> De: Stephen Thorpe
> Enviat per:
>
"Taxacom"
>
>
> Data:
09/05/2016 12:29AM
> a/c: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
Assumpte: [Taxacom] I'm furious over
> article: On typeless species and the
perils
> of fast
>
>
taxonomy
>
>
>
> 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.
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
F.R.E.S.
US Post Office
Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West
Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West
Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA
(406)
994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list