[Zoobank-list] "the real challenge"

[Richard Pyle]

Martin Spies asks:

> If availability were tied to (fast) registration only, 
> uncoupled from (much slower) publication, what would 
> be the safeguard prior to publication against misapplication 
> (intentional or unintentional) of the available but 
> insufficiently defined name? 

Answer:  The exact same factors that currently safeguard against taxonomists rapmantly self-publishing Code-compliant names right now (i.e., professional reputation), PLUS a whole series of potential safeguards that are ONLY possible in the paradigm of mandatory registration (see my recent replies to Frank).

> Yes, comparisons of misnamed material with the type(s) 
> designated along with registration would clarify the taxonomy, 
> but a system improving on what we have now ought best to preclude 
> the necessity for (potentially lots of) such comparisons.

Agreed!  And Mandatory Registration offers us that potential, in dozens (if not hundreds) of possible ways, the optimum set of which could only be determined through extensive real-world testing on a non-mandatory prototype system.  I've already suggested several such electronic safeguards on this list, and in off-list responses to various people.  When I have more time (in a few weeks), I'll set up a web page artickualting them in more detail.

> I agree, but what good, then - if you'll forgive a newcomer to 
> the list such an heretic question - is back-and-forth repetition of 
> arguments about details way beyond "the real challenge" you're naming?

Very fair question!!  And I think the answer is that, before we can even approach the larger taxonomic community, we need to think through these issues carefully among the procative supporters of registration, so we can present a clearer picture to the less enthusiastic community -- if not with a unified voice, at least with a well articulated list of costs/benefits for each proposed scenario.  The biggest question the outside community will have is, "How will it work?"  The answer to that question depends very heavily on the fundamental question we are discussing now (i.e., the respective roles of registration, traditional publication, non-traditional publication, and peer-review; as well as the different roles of nomenclatural availability and scientific rigor).  So, the purpose of this current discussion is to get a sense of the various possible answers to the question of "How will it work?", and at least make sure we've thought through all the potential benefits and pitfalls of each concept for how it might work.

> Sorry, folks, but I don't find the results of my first day 
> on this list particularly productive or attractive, what with, 
> for example, about a dozen messages copying the thread title I 
> had introduced, but only one of them actually dealing with 
> elements of my initial message.

If I failed to adequately address your questions/concerns, I apologize, and would be happy to give another try at addressing them, if you would like me to.

> In this context, I still would be interested in a 
> discussion of my proposal (possibly also voiced by somebody before me?) 
> of an additional registration requirement for new names as soon as 
> possible, plus a gradual quality control process for registration of 
> previously established names. I sincerely believe that this scenario
> would best meet "the real challenge", because it would require the 
> community to adapt to a relatively minimal change, and a change the 
> advantages of which should be the easiest to demonstrate.

I think that this general approach you describe has been voiced several times on this list before, without much dissent.  I think everyone understands that mandatory registration of post-200X names will be a different system from retrospective registration of pre-200X names. 

I am a strong advocate of "baby steps", but I have some concerns about too many "intermediate" steps in the process. For example, if we introduce the "registered+published = available" approach as a first step (i.e., simply adding mandatory registration on top of existing paper-publication requirements), and then later upgrade to either a "registered=available" or a "registered=published=available" system, we will forever in the future need to contend with yet another intermediate phase in nomenclatural history:

"All names proposed prior to 2008 must meet criteria X,Y,Z..."

"All names proposed after 2007 and before 201X must meet criteria X,Y,Z and also must be registered..."

"All names proposed after 201X-1 must meet criteria P,D,Q and also must be registered...."

My gut feeling is to proceed as follows:

1) Build one or more mock-up prototype web sites that people can play with to get a sense for what seems to work best.

2) Establish a mature, well-tested prototype registry as an official mechanism for voluntary registration of names.

3) After a year or two of playing with and tweaking the official voluntary registration system, it will become clearer whether the path forward will be to establish an intermediate mandatory registration only with the idea of more advanced features later on, or if the community is ready to take a larger step at the first introduction of mandatory registration.

My main point all along, ever since I first started getting vocal about mandatory registration several years ago, is that there MUST be a working prototype system in place, tested by a large slice of the taxonomic community on a voluntary basis, and modified according to feedback, BEFORE we can know how best to introduce registration as a mandatory requirement.

These discussions on the ZooBank list have been EXTREMELY helpful to me for my understanding of how a prototype system should be designed, and what features it should have.

Aloha,
Rich