[Zoobank-list] Yanega scenario

[Richard Pyle]

Geert Goemans wrote:

> But what will happen to the sometimes incredibly well illustrated
> catalogues that are published but that are not peer reviewed but
> do fulfil the requirements of the ICZN code. Will they still get
> accepted or would they also have to go through the system?

"Scenario 1" (Mandatory registration only), as I outlined previously, would
allow such names to be secondarily registered and made available -- provided
that the published description fulfills all of the minimum requirements in
the ICZN Code.

However, new names included in such publications that are decoupled from
ZooBank would not fulfill availability requirements of the new Code, if
either Scenario 2 or 3 (Registration fulfills Publication/Yanega Scenario)
are embraced.  The point of these latter two scenarios is that Registration
and nomenclatural availability are synchronized within the same event.

The main difference between Scenarios 2 & 3 is that the former disentangles
nomenclatural availability from the science of taxonomy, whereas the latter
more tightly coordinates nomenclatural availability and science.

Note that none of these three scenarios is mutually exclusive in terms of
features available through ZooBank.  For example, neither Scenarios 1 nor 2
precludes the establishment of an online/open-peer-review electronic journal
as described by Doug, as an integral component of ZooBank.  The only
difference between the scenarios is in terms of what constitutes the minimum
criteria for the availability of a new name -- that is, how the next
version/edition of the ICZN Code will be drafted.

As I have already stated, I believe the best solution is to disentangle the
process of establishing ICZN-recognized nomenclatural acts from the science
of taxonomy -- as is currently the case in terms of Code requirements (but
not in terms of actual practice by taxonomists).

Carlos Sarmiento wrote earlier:

> There is a risk in leaving registration just to the
> "web process", names may proliferate "without control". Even
> though we have seen hard copy publications with obvious taxonomic
> and nomenclatorial mistakes, the peer review process is important
> to keep standards high.

I certainly agree with the need to keep taxonomic standards high, and I also
understand the risk of name proliferation.  However, I believe it would not
be difficult to establish protocols within ZooBank to mitigate both of these
concerns -- even if nomenclatural registration/availability were decoupled
from the peer-reviewed science of taxonomy.

As is currently the situation with the 4th Edition of the ICZN Code, I am
perfectly at liberty to draft a 1-paragraph description of a new taxon on my
laptop computer, fulfill all the basic requirements of the current Code
(e.g., properly designating a type, etc.), print multiple copies on "durable
media" with my laser printer (or print one copy and make multiple
photocopies), and mail these multiple copies simultaneously to various
libraries/researchers, etc. -- and thus create a new available name in
accordance with ICZN rules.

The reason that this is not already a widespread problem within taxonomy is
that taxonomists care about their scientific reputations.  I don't believe
this fundamental premise will change with the introduction of ZooBank.
Indeed, I believe there are numerous easy methods to foster good science
alongside registration of new names, simply by how the data on ZooBank are
presented.  I don't have time to describe these ideas now, but suffice it to
say there are many, many options available to us, harnessing the power of a
robust database system that would serve as the core of ZooBank.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html