[Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Tue May 10 18:32:53 CDT 2016
2016
Stephen,
OK, rereading what I wrote, I guess I can see how you took it that way,
sorry. I apologize for not being clear,
Mike
On 5/10/2016 5:15 PM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> I was not disagreeing with you, but the concept attributed to the
> Brazilians. You clearly say "I detect two possible underlying
> concerns which may be motivating the reaction against holotypes
> designated via photos...(2)
> This might encourage amateurs to describe new taxa." It was clear
> you did not agree with these motivations. I was agreeing, stongly.
>
> I was simply stating that bashing amateurs is a bad reason for
> anything. But, Sharp was a physician by trade, so was an amateur
> entomologist. As for Broun "As a result of this work, in 1894 Broun
> was appointed to the Department of Agriculture as government
> entomologist at Auckland," clearly a professional.
>
> It is not a PhD that distinguishes the two, it is a paycheck.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 5/10/2016 5:04 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> .
>>
>
--
__________________________________________________
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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list