[Taxacom] Who should get the kudos?

[blaberus1]

It's flawed and unscientific because it depends on how many people believe
a person was the originator of an idea. This doesn't necessarily correspond
to the historical facts. As scientists we should look to establish such
facts and not be concerned how many people decide whether or not they
accept them. So just because a high proportion of the World's population
might believe that Joe Bloggs invented the Thromdibulator doesn't mean they
are correct. Historians may realise that Harry Smith invented it 10 years
before Bloggs.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 19:53, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not quite sure what is being referred to as 'flawed and unscientific' but
> when it comes to credit it is really not in the name of the species, but
> the author names that go with the species name. So I might, for example,
> name a species Pfitzneriella antonkozlovi after the collector, but it is
> Pfitzeriella antonkozlovi Grehan & Mielke, 2018. It is the author name/s
> that claims credit for naming the species.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 2:36 PM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is an odd argument to me at least! It seems like a flawed and
>> unscientific way of attributing kudos for an idea. The amount of credit
>> someone might receive is not necessarily correlated with the amount of
>> credit they deserve. In fact they may receive credit for ideas which they
>> didn't actually even discover or even claim they discovered! People may
>> have just got it wrong! Just because lots of people think something doesn't
>> mean it is correct - look at religion for example! Perhaps I need to study
>> this https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/ but it
>> might muddy the water even more!
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 18:43, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Even publication can be a thorny problem. One may publish on something
>>> but still not get credit, but someone else later does. Classic case is
>>> cladistics where Rosa seems to have 'discovered' the method, but it is
>>> Hennig's 'discovery' (unless he did plagiarize from Rosa which at present
>>> is impossible to know) that is generally credited. David Hull makes the
>>> argument that credit is what counts, not whether one is actually 'first' or
>>> not. There are earlier workers with 'natural selection' concepts, but
>>> Darwin made the most extensive argument at a time and place that resulted
>>> in his receiving the primary credit from subsequent researchers. Going back
>>> to 'wallacii' - we are taking about 'wallacii' in consequence of it being
>>> described as such rather than it being collected (although one led to the
>>> other in this instance). As Mike notes, Ali would not have been the first
>>> to collect a specimen, let alone recognize it as different, if he did. But
>>> Wallace went on record as making the distinction.
>>>
>>> John Grehan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:31 PM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In that case Darwin did not discover natural selection before Wallace,
>>>> since both men simultaneously published the theory. And no one can discover
>>>> anything without publishing the idea. My understanding of scientific
>>>> discovery is that the first person to realise that a concept, species etc
>>>> is new to SCIENCE (not to them personally) is the discoverer. You only,
>>>> however get credit for your discovery, if you publish it.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 18:23, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me that Ali discovered a specimen. It is the describer of the
>>>>> species that 'discovers' the species. Even if someone else may have already
>>>>> regarded the described species as a different species it is the describer
>>>>> wo makes the formal 'discovery'. One could say that some unknown species of
>>>>> Homo or even an australopithecine first 'discovered', for the sake of
>>>>> argument, the lion as a 'species' (assuming they had a species concept).
>>>>> And of course there are many known cases of species being first recognized
>>>>> and named by local cultures before they were described under the Linnaean
>>>>> system. 'S. wallacii' as a label did not exist until described. If the
>>>>> collector recognized the specimen as a distinct species then that person
>>>>> did make that discovery, but could then only be said to have discovered a
>>>>> specimen later designated as 'S. wallacii'.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Grehan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:14 PM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is becoming evident that my first message wasn't very clear! I
>>>>>> know that taxonomists can name new species after anyone they like and it's
>>>>>> nice to name them after people who might benefit in some way/be eternally
>>>>>> grateful etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my more specific question is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Does anyone consider a collector to be the discoverer of a species
>>>>>> if the collector did not realise it was new to science?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So would it be correct to state in print "Ali discovered S. wallacii"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 18:07, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would agree in general principle to the 'greater good' - whatever
>>>>>>> seems most appropriate to the describer/s at the time. There is no rule
>>>>>>> book. I have one case of naming a species after a collector who was not the
>>>>>>> original collector of the specimen, but who received it from another
>>>>>>> collector, but brought it to my attention. I noticed that some of the names
>>>>>>> in the article were compound names. One of my colleagues has indicated to
>>>>>>> me a disinclination for such as they are often long and multisyllabic,
>>>>>>> increasing potential for misspellings and challenging pronunciation. But I
>>>>>>> have done so in a couple of cases where it was a condition of the collector
>>>>>>> to access and describe the specimens.
>>>>>>> John Grehan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:58 PM Shorthouse, David <
>>>>>>> davidpshorthouse at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...though to be sure, the children may not have been (and probably
>>>>>>>> weren't) "collectors". The point here is that there is no formal
>>>>>>>> credit system for collecting specimens. So, we might as well use the
>>>>>>>> opportunity for a greater good whenever possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:54 PM Shorthouse, David
>>>>>>>> <davidpshorthouse at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > George -
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > There is no better example than bestowing credit to collectors
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> > this one: https://doi.org/10.3897/JHR.50.8220. Kudos to the team
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> > taxonomists that honoured all the children involved. "The new
>>>>>>>> species
>>>>>>>> > described...received patronyms based on the winners of a school
>>>>>>>> child
>>>>>>>> > nature awareness competition conducted by the Programa de
>>>>>>>> Educación
>>>>>>>> > Biológica de ACG in the last half of 2015".
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > David
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM blaberus1 <g.beccaloni at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > Perhaps I could ask: does anyone consider a collector to be the
>>>>>>>> discoverer
>>>>>>>> > > of a species if the collector did not realise it was new to
>>>>>>>> science? The
>>>>>>>> > > people I mentioned believe that it was Ali not Wallace who
>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>> > > Semioptera wallacii.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > Thanks!
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > George
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 16:29, John Grehan <
>>>>>>>> calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > > George,
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > In my experience for the group of my study species have
>>>>>>>> sometimes been
>>>>>>>> > > > named for the collector, sometimes not. Seems to be a
>>>>>>>> discretionary choice.
>>>>>>>> > > > There seems to be no necessity for the Semioptera to have
>>>>>>>> been named after
>>>>>>>> > > > the collection. For the new species for which I have been
>>>>>>>> involved with
>>>>>>>> > > > none of the collectors who brought material to the attention
>>>>>>>> of myself or
>>>>>>>> > > > colleagues 'knew' in advance that they had a new species. I
>>>>>>>> have found new
>>>>>>>> > > > species in other groups and it would be absurd to expect that
>>>>>>>> the species
>>>>>>>> > > > should necessarily be named after me just because I found the
>>>>>>>> specimens. I
>>>>>>>> > > > think your critics are unfamiliar with normal taxonomic
>>>>>>>> practice. I'll be
>>>>>>>> > > > interested to what others on the list with broader experience
>>>>>>>> have to say.
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > John Grehan
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:18 AM blaberus1 <
>>>>>>>> g.beccaloni at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > >> I have been debating with historians of science and others
>>>>>>>> for a while now
>>>>>>>> > > >> about who discovered Semioptera wallacii (Standardwing Bird
>>>>>>>> of Paradise):
>>>>>>>> > > >> –
>>>>>>>> > > >> was it Alfred Russel Wallace or his assistant Ali? They are
>>>>>>>> arguing it was
>>>>>>>> > > >> Ali as he shot the first specimen – and they believe it is a
>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>> > > >> injustice it was named after Wallace (in fact I have been
>>>>>>>> called “racist”
>>>>>>>> > > >> for arguing against this point of view!).
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> Wallace wrote in his book *The Malay Archipelago* “Just as I
>>>>>>>> got home I
>>>>>>>> > > >> overtook Ali returning from shooting with some birds hanging
>>>>>>>> from his
>>>>>>>> > > >> belt.
>>>>>>>> > > >> He seemed much pleased, and said, "Look here, sir, what a
>>>>>>>> curious bird,"
>>>>>>>> > > >> holding out what at first completely puzzled me. I saw a
>>>>>>>> bird with a mass
>>>>>>>> > > >> of splendid green feathers on its breast, elongated into two
>>>>>>>> glittering
>>>>>>>> > > >> tufts; but, what I could not understand was a pair of long
>>>>>>>> white feathers,
>>>>>>>> > > >> which stuck straight out from each shoulder. Ali assured me
>>>>>>>> that the bird
>>>>>>>> > > >> stuck them out this way itself, when fluttering its wings,
>>>>>>>> and that they
>>>>>>>> > > >> had remained so without his touching them. I now saw that I
>>>>>>>> had got a
>>>>>>>> > > >> great
>>>>>>>> > > >> prize, no less than a completely new form of the Bird of
>>>>>>>> Paradise,
>>>>>>>> > > >> differing most remarkably from every other known bird.”
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> As a taxonomist my argument is that while Ali collected the
>>>>>>>> first specimen
>>>>>>>> > > >> he did not know it was a species new to Western taxonomy. We
>>>>>>>> are talking
>>>>>>>> > > >> about species new to SCIENCE, not simply new to Ali. Unlike
>>>>>>>> Wallace, Ali
>>>>>>>> > > >> was illiterate and was not a biologist/taxonomist. Wallace,
>>>>>>>> however,
>>>>>>>> > > >> thanks
>>>>>>>> > > >> to his in-depth knowledge of the birds of the region,
>>>>>>>> immediately
>>>>>>>> > > >> recognised that it was a new species. He excitedly wrote to
>>>>>>>> his agent
>>>>>>>> > > >> Stevens:
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> "...I believe I have already the finest & most wonderful
>>>>>>>> bird in the
>>>>>>>> > > >> island
>>>>>>>> > > >> [Bacan, Indonesia]. I had a good mind to keep it a secret
>>>>>>>> but I cannot
>>>>>>>> > > >> resist telling you, I have got here a new Bird of Paradise!!
>>>>>>>> of a new
>>>>>>>> > > >> genus!!! quite unlike anything yet known, very curious &
>>>>>>>> very handsome!!!
>>>>>>>> > > >> When I can get a couple of pairs I will send them overland
>>>>>>>> to see what a
>>>>>>>> > > >> new Bird of Paradise will really fetch. I expect £25 each!
>>>>>>>> Had I seen the
>>>>>>>> > > >> bird in Ternate I would never have believed it came from
>>>>>>>> here, so far out
>>>>>>>> > > >> of the hitherto supposed region of the Paradiseidae. I
>>>>>>>> consider it the
>>>>>>>> > > >> greatest discovery I have yet made..." (Wallace, 1858)
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> So Wallace clearly thought HE had discovered it.
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> The species was named in Wallace’s honour by Gray in 1859 -
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> http://wallace-online.org/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=WSPEC017&viewtype=text
>>>>>>>> > > >> based on a sketch which Wallace had sent.
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> So my argument is that simply collecting a new species does
>>>>>>>> not mean you
>>>>>>>> > > >> discovered it – even if it is new to you personally. The
>>>>>>>> discoverer is the
>>>>>>>> > > >> person who realises it is a species not yet named by
>>>>>>>> taxonomists. What do
>>>>>>>> > > >> you think?
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> Incidentally, I note that none of 10 randomly selected
>>>>>>>> species of
>>>>>>>> > > >> cockroaches described in the last 10 years were named after
>>>>>>>> the collectors
>>>>>>>> > > >> of the holotypes of these species. Their names were,
>>>>>>>> however, mentioned in
>>>>>>>> > > >> the species descriptions, so they were credited for their
>>>>>>>> efforts.
>>>>>>>> > > >> Perhaps,
>>>>>>>> > > >> however, some taxonomists do regularly name species after
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> > > >> collectors?
>>>>>>>> > > >> Does anyone know whether this practice is commonly followed
>>>>>>>> by taxonomists
>>>>>>>> > > >> of particular groups?
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> George Beccaloni
>>>>>>>> > > >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> > > >> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>>>> > > >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> > > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, 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
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some
>>>>>>>> Years, 1987-2018.
>>>>>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> > > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>>>> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, 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
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
>>>>>>>> 1987-2018.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>