[Taxacom] (no subject)

[John Grehan]

I should add - publish a superior list, perhaps one with images of each
species, or the types, information on biology, citations of work on each
species, location of type, type locality, etc. something that would raise
its profile over the other list which I presume is just a list of names.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 5:59 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would agree with Richard, publish a corrected list. Let others decide
> between them. You might communicate to the author that you would have been
> happy to give feedback etc if approached and see what the response is. Its
> commonplace enough in biogeography not to be communicated with even when
> publishing extensively on a relevant area or group, so not surprising with
> other venues. By comparison, I am preparing a list for a group for which I
> did not make formal invitation to everyone who has worked on some aspect of
> the taxonomy, although I did make it fairly widely known that I was working
> on the project and some colleagues asked if they could contribute and to
> which I agreed.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 5:27 PM Anthony Gill <gill.anthony at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>