[Zoobank-list] RE: [iczn-list] Registration and quality control
Eschmeyer, Bill
weschmeyer at calacademy.org
Thu Oct 6 20:43:06 BST 2005
Christian,
I have just read the articles involved with a List of Available Names in
Zoology.
First, what does "status" mean as in 79.1.2? It can't mean valid, synonym,
unknown. It does not seem to mean available or unavailable since it is a
list of available names only. I can't find "status" in the glossary, such as
under "names, status", but I may have missed it. Art. 19 says status of
emendations....
[It is great, Christian, to have your historical perspective.]
Secondly, the thrust is towards a List of Available names, NOT all names.
Seems to me Rich could have two lists, and an entry of a name would take you
to either list. The second list is not required for Art. 79 but would be
desirable. I even think more names could be added to the second list over
time; this would not change the approved list. Maybe even more lists, such
as ours for names appearing in opinions could be there. You and I know the
importance of recording all names. I would assume the initial posting of the
draft list would be electronic, with cds also cut and made available.
I had forgotten that this also attempts to fix the types. This means we
still have more work to do in fishes, but some museums are now posting their
type holdings and finding missing types. If we say there is no type, and
then a type is found, well that's what Ferraris and I were talking about in
our review of the code -- certainly the Commission need not be involved in
such matters, and small additions should be able to be made on a regular
basis (?yearly). Who approves the chages and additions? 76.6 requires that
the commission use plenary power to make changes. We need to find another
mechanism I think. I realize that the goal is to fix things forever, with
virtually no changes. I can see fixing the availability of the names, but
not all of the details. Discussion needed.
In my experience people will work on a project like this one work best if
they receive some credit. I would think that we would have a committee to
help with the initial proposed list of fishes -- I consider these people to
be listed authors. The reason is that we need some country representatives;
we still have old descriptions to find and proof, we need to work on author's
names, etc. Anyone in any discipline, it seems to me, can comment. For
example, I hope we can have some consensus on the spelling of Lacepede's name
(5 ways, at least 3 in current usage in fishes, maybe more in other
disciplines).
So, I think a group needs to really look at the creation of the lists of
available names for the retro-registration. These are not details, but seem
like issues that will determine the usefullness and acceptance of such lists.
Once I see how it might work, it becomes very complicated.
I agree -- anyone can comment on the proposed lists -- the committee
established by the Commission and the Commission make the final decisions.
For example, a linguist that I would not necessary consider my peer may make
useful comments as might a museum assistant.
Yes, not yet Friday. Tomorrow I go to San Francisco for a week of literature
work. Arm is virtually healed.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org on behalf of christian thompson
Sent: Thu 10/6/2005 7:05 AM
To: iczn-list at afriherp.org; f.krell at nhm.ac.uk
Cc: Zoobank-list at afriherp.org
Subject: RE: [iczn-list] Registration and quality control
Frank:
Back in the 1990s when we introduced Registration in the draft
version
of the Code, EVERYONE one who used the UCBerkeley Listserver
apparently
endorsed it. I say that because those who wrote comments were
positive,
the comments were about details as always. And as always, there are
lots
more people reading the material posted on a listserver than actually
participate in a listserve!
The objections to Registration came from those not "wired," not
online.
Things have improved in the last few years, more are using the
internet, etc., but there still is a great "digital divide" And I
suspect like before those non-digital people will object to
registration.
Another point to those messages yesterday. Read the Code. The List
provisions were created to solve the retrospective problems with
names.
They do everything you want. And fortunately because these were NEW
and
no one really understood them, there were no objections to them. Yes,
the 2.5 years that process takes for approval may seem too long, but
...
And notice in 79.2.2.1 on the source of the proposed list the words
"on
paper or otherwise," so Bill's online list of fish is OK.
And Rich's comments about one database being both a part of the List
of
Available Names in Zoology and a nomenclator, that is, a list of ALL
names is critical. That is, users will need to know what names were
examined and decided and then declared NOT to be available. That
separated those names which may have been overlooked and may
potentially
be added (see Art. 79.6) from those, in essence, rejected by the
acceptance of the part, etc.
As for Doug and his passion for "peer-review," Frank is right. But
let
me add a personal note. I serve on the editorial board of the
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which
unfortunately
became last year the first Scientific Society to publish a
"peer-reviewed" paper on Intelligent Design. Yes, Doug, by "peers"
as
in who are the peers of one who writes about Intelligent Design but
other supporters!
I still believe that "peer-review" is the best quality control system
we have for Science, but it is far from perfect.
HOWEVER, note the preamble and the line about "... none restricts the
freedom of taxonomic thought or actions." All the ICZN and
registration
can do is to ensure a minimal set of requirements, such as that a
type
is properly designated, etc., for new taxa that are named. This is a
simple process which Zoological Record can do and will do for us.
Assessing whether the new taxa have merit remains a challenge to
Science.
Oh, well and it isn't even Friday yet ...
F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA
c/o Smithsonian Institution
MRC-0169 NHB
PO Box 37012
Washington, DC 20013-7012
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 FAX
cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov e-mail
www.diptera.org web site
>>> f.krell at nhm.ac.uk 10/06/05 07:56AM >>>
Martin, this was one of my intentions...
but it will make life easier for the people who will work on the
actual
registration system when the main discussion is held in one place.
You may overestimate the amount of discussion going on in the ZooBank
list. We need to get comments from more people, particularly from
people
who are strictly agains registration (nobody so far), because we want
to
know possible reasons (The botanists rejected an already working
registration system). We would like to accomodate those sceptical
people
by considering their concerns and eventually create a system that
convinces the overwhelming majority of taxonomists. So far, everybody
is
enthusiastic about registration. Can this be true?
Cheers
Frank
Dr Frank-T. Krell
Head, Coleoptera Division
Head, Scarab Research Group
Editor, Systematic Entomology
Department of Entomology
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD, U.K.
Tel. +44 (0) 20 7942 5886
Fax +44 (0) 20 7942 5229
f.krell at nhm.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Spies, Martin
[mailto:spies at zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de]
Sent: Thu 06/10/2005 12:38
To: Zoological Nomenclature Discussion Group
Cc:
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] Registration and quality control
Frank Krell wrote:
>Martin, I copy your mail (below) over to the Zoobank list.
>It is a summary of the discussion going on in the iczn-list
for
a few days which drifted towards the registration issue.
>
Thanks, Frank - though I suppose now I'll have to join the
ZooBank list,
too, to see any responses; something I had avoided so far for
'fear' of
the additional mail waves draining even more of my brain and
time ;-)
--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany
_______________________________________________
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
_______________________________________________
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20051006/164eae84/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Zoobank-list
mailing list