[Taxacom] (no subject)

[Richard Zander]

It's not exactly commonplace, but one of the first things a beginner does is prepare a checklist of his/her chosen taxonomic group. Maybe someone suggested it be published, since it seemed complete.

People in the know are aware of this travesty. You need to prepare a corrected checklist. Perhaps you should have done this earlier.... We all take our hard-won positions as solid until young whippersnappers challenge the silverback.


-------
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis – Missouri – 63110 – USA
richard.zander at mobot.org Ofc: +1 314 577-0276
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Gill
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 4:28 PM
To: TAXACOM
Subject: [Taxacom] (no subject)

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
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.