[Zoobank-list] Re: name auctions in the news

[Doug Yanega]

Wolfgang Wuster wrote:

>In Germany, a clearing house for this kind of thing already exists: 
>http://www.biopat.de/englisch/index_e.htm
>There would be a lot to be said for organising the auctioning of 
>species  in a manner than demands a degree of quality control - 
>BioPat seems to be the right way of doing it.

You'll note that I am not disagreeing - BioPat is actually an 
excellent model for how this sort of thing could and should be done, 
and I support it. What I am suggesting is, basically, that similar 
guidelines should be UNIVERSALLY applied to any such efforts. Part of 
the problem should be obvious: right now, all the world's museums and 
collections share specimens freely. If certain individuals or 
institutions begin to exploit those SHARED resources for their own 
PRIVATE benefit, then there will be a fundamental conflict, and 
trouble. Just examine the BioPat principles:

"- offers donors the opportunity of sponsoring a newly discovered 
animal or plant species and of giving this a scientific name of their 
own choice
- agrees sponsors' choice of names with the researchers responsible 
for identifying the new species
- maintains a scientific Advisory Council that verifies the bona 
fides of the co-operating researchers and issues recommendations as 
to whether a particular species should be included in the BIOPAT 
sponsorship scheme. The Advisory Council is made up of staff from 
various research institutes. External specialists dealing with 
particular taxonomical groups may be brought in to help with the 
appraisal process.
- ensures that the names suggested by donors are allocated in a 
scientifically sound and formally correct manner
- provides sponsors with documentary proof of their personal choice 
of name for the new species in question
- ensures that, in accordance with the association's statutes, half 
the donated funds go to the promotion of taxonomical research in the 
co-operating institutes and half to research projects aimed at 
protecting biodiversity in the countries of origin of the new species
- publishes a regular bulletin giving details of names allocated and 
of research projects and protective measures being supported"

These guidelines emphasize and COMPEL cooperation, profit-sharing, 
and legitimate peer review. We need a community-wide policy that 
accomplishes the same thing, in a similar manner. We, as a community, 
have only one actual tool at our disposal that *could* be used as 
leverage: we could have the power, if we choose, to declare whether a 
published taxon description is to be recognized and accepted. To 
exercise such a power, however, would require that we introduce 
*subjective* criteria (this is, after all, what the above guidelines 
consist of, mostly). Having a mandatory name registry such as ZooBank 
would definitely make this far easier to accomplish - because we 
could DENY registration for names that do not meet certain criteria - 
so your new patronym is either on the Official List, or it isn't. The 
whole concept of "quality control" in taxonomy requires - by 
*definition* - that there must be some way of rejecting certain 
works, and having a single Official List would offer exactly such a 
checkpoint. The present Code has no such mechanism. We need to follow 
BioPat's example at least that far, if not further.

Sincerely,
-- 

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82