[Zoobank-list] "the real challenge" vs. overly complex proposals

[Spies, Martin]

Nothing personal, Richard, but reassessing the cost/benefit ratio I see 
little use at this time - neither in the greater context nor on a 
personal level - in perpetuating our ping-pong singles match beyond my 
following (by necessity) selective remarks. (I wonder whether Frank is 
glad that I kind of took over the paddle from him.)

Richard Pyle wrote:

> ... keep in mind the alternative: that a name, possibly needed by the 
> community for a well-recognized taxon, awaits formal published 
> description for a long or even unlimited amount of time, and is 
> unavailable for use by anyone until it is finally published.

Doesn't look like the bigger of the two risks to me. How many 
"well-recognized" but unnamed taxa are out there relative to the 
multitude of truly new taxa being described. In other words, what 
proportion of the approx. 20,000 new names per year belong to this 
category you're concerned with? And if a taxon is "well-recognized" and 
frequently 'handled' in the literature, why would it not be named the 
regular way? If that is as urgent as your example assumes - but, let's 
face it, to have a formal scientific name is far less necessary by 
itself than to have ANY "well-recognized" name and unambiguous link to 
an unambiguous taxon concept - then there is no real impediment to 
establishing availability under the present requirements. One doesn't 
HAVE to get umpteen pages published to make a scientific name available 
(especially not if a name-less but "well-recognizable" published 
description can be referred to), and 'legal' venues such as ZOOTAXA can 
get the validation out really quickly.

What you're suggesting in essence is an argument for scenario 2 as a 
faster way to make names available. To that I would reply that we need 
high-quality taxonomy and reasonable stability of nomenclature much more 
than speedily available new names. If I understand scenario 2 correctly, 
then a taxonomic definition, as already required for availability now, 
would have to be incorporated into the registry entry. However, if the 
scenario intends that definition to be no more than a brief diagnosis, 
rather than a 'full formal' description such as is the norm in taxonomic 
publications now, then I wonder why we're not all publishing brief 
diagnoses already if they suffice to avoid ambiguity in taxonomic 
concepts and to establish a stable nomenclature. On the other hand, if 
more than brief diagnoses is needed to reach these latter goals - and 
that seems to be what the community of zoologists has been convinced of 
-  then just a brief diagnosis along with the name in the registry entry 
will NOT suffice.

>In fishes, the second problem is VERY real  
>
Please explain to me how that happens in ichthyology on a scale large 
enough to make it a very real problem? How can it work for an extended 
period of time that many taxonomic concepts are out there 
"well-recognized" but not properly (reproducibly) established or named? 
 From experience in the animal group I work on I would tend to think 
that such 'good recognition' could hardly be more than a communal 
illusion. Either that or the available names aren't as essentially 
needed in practice as you're postulating, because people will understand 
and use any name as long as that ame is stable and it is unequivocally 
established what taxon it denotes. There are numerous examples for the 
latter phenomenon in the group I work on: colleagues have agreed on 
certain names and keep using them unanimously, in spite of the 
long-known 'fact' that they are not sanctioned by the ICZN Code.

>2) I would STRONGLY advocate that at least one (and allowing for many) image(s) of the Holotype be a mandatory component of Registration.  I understand that this might impose undue hardship on practicing taxonomists who lack access to electronic imaging technology (digital camera or scanner)
>
Your last sentence got it right. For that reason alone you won't get 
majority consensus for such a proposal. *I think we ought to avoid 
missing the common goal of mandatory registration by making our proposal 
to the hesitant community at large too complex, and by cluttering it 
with idealistic but - excuse the bluntness - pipe dreams.*

>  But for many taxa, a picture paints a thousand characters, and would go a long way to mitigating mis-application of a registered name (especially in conjunction with type locality).  
>
In the group of insects I work on, and as far as I know in the vast 
majority of animal groups, a single illustration is far from sufficient. 
In analogy to my above questions: Why would it be the expected and 
implemented standard in so many taxonomic publications to provide many 
illustrations if that weren't necessary? Moreover, an illustration not 
sufficiently explained by the original author, even if made by a 
world-class illustrator, does not sufficiently serve to avoid 
misinterpretations, because in reality there are many users out there 
who fail to see by themselves everything that is important, and who may 
misinterpret any part of the illustration, unless guided by 
conscientious explanations.

>4) Registration includes mandatory citation of holotype specimen, and therefore the ability for other authors to compare it directly for their own use (admittedly not a major mitigating factor for the problem you describe, due to the cumbersome nature of accessing holotypes, and the low likelihood that authors would go to this much trouble).  
>
Exactly! A system involving the need for multiple physical 
re-examination of the type material is absolutely impractical. 
Therefore, there must be a published description comprehensive and 
precise enough to allow recognition of the name and taxonomic concept 
without re-examination of the type material, the latter becoming 
necessary only exceptionally or for additional, non-diagnostic purposes.

>5) Faith in the competence of those authors who wish to cite the newly registered name to ensure they understand the parameters of the taxon in which the holotype is a member, before they attempt to apply it in their own use.  This may be overly wishful thinking, of course.  
>
Wishful thinking, indeed. Besides, are you really advocating "faith" as 
an acceptable factor mitigating factual risks? Aren't we trying to 
create a scientific instrument here?

>Bear in mind also that there is nothing preventing taxonomists from registering their new names concurrently, or after the date on which their formal descriptions are published, thereby allowing the opportunity to eliminate the "risky" time-lag altogether.  
>
If you're going to allow them to do this, and thus to counteract what 
you seem to be pushing for, then why not make this the norm altogether 
and so truly avoid every last fraction of that risk in the first place?

>considering the costs of having the name totally unavailable during the lag before publication in the alternative paradigm
>
Just what would that cost be? A taxon nobody works with doesn't need a 
name that urgently. A taxon everybody works with already and which has 
been circumscribed unambiguously can be named quickly enough in any 
scenario (even if a sixth-month peer review period of the name AND 
taxonomic content were required). And a taxon not yet unambiguously 
defined SHOULDN'T get an available name, because validity of scientific 
content and unambiguous links between taxonomy and nomenclature are MUCH 
more important than formal status of a mere name.

>According to the way the Code is now structured, the *only* objective taxonomic content of a name is the type specimen or syntype series.  Everything beyond this is subjective interpretation by taxonomists, and therefore outside the realm of nomenclatural rules.
>
Not true. Firstly (somewhat beside my point), conspecificity of a type 
series is a subjective hypothesis as well, and to try to eliminate 
subjectivity from nomenclature by dissociating it from taxonomy would be 
futile. Secondly (and more importantly here), the Code does not regulate 
the details of form or content of a taxon definition, but it does 
require such a definition to be there "in words", not just as a physical 
specimen - and it has done so for good reasons. Actually, though the 
Code doesn't say it this clearly, the logical rank order between 
published original definition and type material clearly favors the 
definition. One obvious reason for this is that a definition published 
as required by the ICZN is a much more stable and reproducible record 
than a physical specimen can be. Consequently, if a comparison between 
the original description and a supposed type specimen shows 
discrepancies, then - barring special circumstances - scientific 
reproducibility demands that we rely on the published description more 
than on the supposed type status of the specimen. One expression of this 
in the Code is that a type label by itself is insufficient evidence 
(1999 Code Arts. 9.6, 12.3, 72.4.7). Another equally good reason is 
that, as you admitted above, it is feasible that everybody interested 
sees the original published definition, but not that everybody 
physically examines the type specimens.

>  One of the greatest challenges of informatics faced by the taxonomic community is the rampant historical muddling of taxon names with taxon concepts.  The organismal content of a *name*, per se, ends with the type specimen(s).
>
On the first of the above sentences: I don't find it justified to reduce 
this challenge to one of "informatics". Databases such as ZooBank can 
make important contributions, but we must not make them the sole or 
overriding measuring sticks for how we do things in taxonomy and 
nomenclature.
*On the second sentence: I don't think there's anything in the 250-year 
taxonomic tradition, the four editions of the ICZN Code, or even just 
the ideas behind both, that justifies your - intentional? - attempt to 
devalue or eliminate the original published definition in words and 
illustrations. Your statement above is wrong historically and factually, 
and in my opinion starting off now on that road you're proposing would 
mean the opposite of progress.*

In general, I don't see how scenario 2, or any scenario for that matter, 
could remedy that some people confuse different categories and concepts. 
As you yourself mentioned in several places of your messages: people 
make mistakes under any system - no difference whether nomenclature 
stays as (little) linked to taxonomic content as it is now or the two 
are farther or completely dissociated. Put another way: The mistakes 
made if scenario 2 were implemented might not be the same as those under 
other scenarios, but based on the arguments I've presented I think that 
this trade-off of mistakes is not favorable for scenario 2 as far as the 
issues are concerned that we have been discussing here.

>Due to existing 13.1.1, and proposed 17.2.3/17.2.4, they [name and corresponding taxon concept; MS] would not be completely disassociated.
>  
>
Fine! But then where's the "philosophical" difference and supposed 
improvement towards avoiding "muddling" of the two realms?

>One difference might be (if I read you correctly) that during the period between registration and formal publication, the registered name will be publicly exposed (but not officially available), thereby allowing review and feedback prior to availability.  Is this correct?  
>
Exactly.

>>Install a stepwise data quality control system with ICZN Official list protection
>>once a certain quality level is reached.    
>>
>This is the discussion that took place on the ICZN list, and I think it's a fundamentally good approach, and one that flows naturally from large-scale efforts involving non-mandatory retrospective registration.
>
I don't recall an ICZN-list discussion about this particular aspect, nor 
do I recall anybody other than me advocating it there.

>Finally, you did not address one of my questions/points to you
>
Oops, how could I possibly have overlooked one, as few as there always 
are ;-)

>If I understand you correctly, your proposal involves creating two more during the next decade (2007-2011, 2012-next).  If it will really take at least 2 more years before we can confidently implement mandatory registration, and 6 more years to establish a new Edition of the Code, I believe we will be doing future generations a great service by postponing the implementation of mandatory registration by a few years, and implement all the "major" changes (of which I consider simple mandatory registration one) at one time.
>
Well, as they say: your skin is closer to you than your shirt. Thus, I 
admit to being a little more concerned with pressing problems of the 
present than with a comparatively minor problem of the future (and, as 
you aptly demonstrated, successive time periods already are a customary 
factor in the Code - an issue a future edition and/or the establishment 
of Official lists should help resolve). But if we'll have to wait for a 
new Code edition until mandatory registration is implemented, then so be 
it. I'll work with any widely accepted set of nomenclature regulations, 
as long as they make sense and facilitate rather than obstruct practical 
taxonomic work.

-- 
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20051008/9f5e9231/attachment-0001.html