[Zoobank-list] "the real challenge"

[Spies, Martin]

As I wrote before, I don't see much good coming from yet another endless 
back and forth, but

>Martin Spies asked:
>
>>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?
>>
Rich Pyle replied:

>>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).
>>
Sorry, but I think you're aiming at a danger other than the one I see. 
Firstly, you and I do not disagree about the advantages of mandatory 
registration. Secondly, lag times between registration=availability and 
subsequent ("secondary", as you call it) publication, and in your 
scenario these lags could be long or even unlimited, significantly 
increase the risk of threats to stability from uses of an available name 
in taxonomic senses other than that intended by the name's author. At 
present, this risk is zero relative to your scenario, because there is 
zero lag time between availability and publication. Professional 
reputation would not be an effective safeguard here, because people make 
mistakes, and it wouldn't undo the damage to stability or reduce the 
necessary cleanup effort if the person who did the damage lost some of 
his/her reputation.
Thus, the net result of your scenario would be more threats to stability 
than under the current system, at least as regards the specific issue 
we're discussing here.

In addition, I disagree with the uncoupling of availability and 
publication for a principal reason: nomenclature is useless without the 
taxonomic content it is supposed to help communicating about; therefore 
it should not be completely disassociated from this content (in time and 
space). The increased risk of uncoupled, parallel or even diverging 
worlds developing, and meaning being lost in both worlds as a 
consequence, is too large to accept this increase voluntarily and 
unnecessarily.

>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.
>  
>
Actually, one of your messages was the one I mentioned that DID address 
the colleague's concern I had related yesterday. So, thanks.

>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 don't see that as the essence of what I described, and I do see 
differences to the two scenarios on the ICZN webpage and the three 
discussed here.

>I am a strong advocate of "baby steps", but I have some concerns about too many "intermediate" steps in the process.
>
The steps you're concerned about are not part of my proposal. I am not 
advocating stepwise changes to the registration/availability procedure, 
but a quality control system - especially for previously established 
data  - that is cumulative and open-end rather than inflexibly tied to a 
fixed date of data closure. To clarify, the scenario I favor is:

1. Mandatory registration as an additional requirement as quickly as 
possible.
I don't believe this needs much testing. This kind of system has been 
working just fine with GenBank practically from the beginning of the 
latter, with nobody I know having any problem with it. The GenBank 
system can even be improved upon if open review of submitted data 
(nomenclatural only) is made possible (but not mandatory) in ZooBank. 
That way, at least some homonymies, language errors in name formation, 
etc., could be avoided prior to availability, even without the 
distant-future comprehensive database being operational.

2. Begin open-access entry into a registry of previously established 
data as quickly as possible as well, but without making it mandatory for 
availability, etc. Install a stepwise data quality control system with 
ICZN Official list protection once a certain quality level is reached.

3. Leave any additional changes to a thorough re-edition of the Code, 
that ought to promote more than so far the most important principle of 
the scientific method: that everything be based on reproducible evidence.

Best

-- 
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20051007/6087d528/attachment.html