[Taxacom] (no subject)

[Anthony Gill]

As by far the most active taxonomist on a family of fishes, I was very
surprised to see that someone else had just published a checklist of the
species in the family. My research on the family spans a little over 30
years activity, and includes revisionary work on all but one of the six
subfamilies. I have also named about one-third of the known species in the
family. In contrast, the checklist compiler has not published a single
paper on the family, and appears to have limited knowledge of the family.
One might think it respectful to at least inform me that he was working on
the group, or perhaps to invite collaboration. At the very least, it would
seem important that I peer reviewed his checklist. None of those things
happened. Not surprisingly, he introduces a range of errors, and
perpetuates a few others. As far as I can see, the taxonomic information
was lifted from publications (mostly mine - his single included graphic is
also remarkably similar to one I published) and databases (such as
Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes), and (aside from one dubious spelling
change, and various misinterpretations of published information), there is
nothing new in the publication. Yet, if my understanding is correct, this
publication is intended as THE checklist for the family.

I'm curious to hear whether other taxonomists have encountered similar
problems. I've seen similar regional checklists that appear to be simply
compiled from museum databases with little if  any original collecting of
samples or examination of specimens, but this is the first time I've seen a
non-specialist compile a taxonomic checklist. I really hope this isn't
commonplace.

Tony
-- 
Dr Anthony C. Gill
Natural History Curator
A12 Macleay Museum
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia.

Ph. +61 02 9036 6499