[Zoobank-list] registration=publication

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks, Frank.

A few comments:

> 1. It would mean that the ICZN deals with the science itself, not
> only with nomenclature.

Scenario 2 (decoupled science/registriation), no.  Scenario 3 (Yanega), yes.

> 2. Descriptions are scientific interpretations requiring some
> quality control.

Taxon concepts (=science) are definitely so.  Taxon names (=ICZN purview)
are currently not so in the Code, nor do they need to be, nor should they be
(in my opinion). Obviously the names do need quality control as well, but
only of the sort that the ZooBank computer algorithm logic should ensure
(not the subjective sort as found in peer-review).

> There are already enough
> dissatisfying descriptions published, and we can't avoid them,
> but it won't be an advantage if we remove any requirement for
> peer review from descriptive taxonomy at all.

I think that "dissatisfying descriptions" are so only in the context of
science.  Scenario 2 keeps the science and the "legal" act of nomenclatural
availability disconnected.

> 3. Scientists are still assessed by their list of publications,
> and I see no signs that this will change very soon. If we strip
> taxonomists of their descriptive papers because everything has to
> be published in ZooBank, they will get even worse assessments.

In Scenario 2, scientists will still publish their descriptions, and they
can keep the same titles ("A new species of Dingbat from Kalamazoo"), and
they will have the same content, and will look just as imressive on a CV.
The only difference is that such published descriptions would no longer
represent an essential component to nomenclatural availability, under ICZN.
Scientists are motivated to publish new descriptions primarily to share the
scientific aspects of their new discoveries, and I don't see why ICZN
technicalities would have any impact whatsoever on a journal's desire to
publish such a new taxon description.  In short, I think the system would
work exactly as it does now, except that there would be no confusion, nor
need for complex interpretation, about authorship, priority, or availability
of new names.

> If
> only an insufficient diagnosis is published in ZooBank requiring
> a extensive description elsewhere, those papers will be less
> attractive for publishers if these descriptions do not describe
> 'new taxa', because they have already been published elsewhere
> (in ZooBank).

Maybe the problem in Scenario 2 is the word "publication".  As we discussed
previously, the word "publication" in this context simply means that it
"satisfies the ICZN requirement of publication".  It is not the same as
"publication" in the sense CVs, or ZooTaxa, or Doug's Scenario 3 for
ZooBank.  And in Scenario 3, the "publication" would be much more than an
insufficient diagnosis -- it would constitute everything that a publication
in ZooTaxa currently is.

> I have the impression that the registration=publication idea
> bases on the impression that original descriptions are formal,
> objective, correct texts which can be treated in a formal way.
> This is not the case. Descriptions can be and often are
> insufficient, wrong, full of misinterpretation, too long
> (describing individuals rather than taxa), commercially intended,
> badly researched, etc., etc.

I agree with all of these statements, which is why I would hate to see the
process of nomenclatural availability encumbered by these pitfalls.

> We should not allow all taxonomy to
> avoid peer review by publishing new taxa with ICZN.

I agree!  But this has no relevance to either Scenario 2 or 3.  In Scenario
2, there is no "taxonomy" in need of peer review -- there is only objective
nomenclatural registration and availability.  In a sense, the ZooBank
database software would serve the role of peer review, because it would
include automated algorithms to ensure compliance with ICZN rules (e.g.,
avoidance of homonymy, proper indication of the type, etc.) Thus, the role
of ICZN (via ZooBank) would continue to be what it has always been: an
arbiter of nomenclatural availability and priority, devoid of scientific
opinion about issues relating to taxonomy.

It's not relevant to Scenario 3, either, because in that scenario, there
would be peer-review.

> At the same
> time, ICZN cannot (and should not!) provide peer review and
> editing for 20000 zoological names per year. ICZN rules
> nomenclature, not science."

Your last sentence perfectly exemplifies why I prefer Scenario 2 to either 1
or 3.  However, in defense of Scenario 3, we already have a situation where
20,000 zoological names are (presumably) peer-reviewed each year.  So, in
theory at least, the reviewers are already "out there" doing their job.  In
Doug's scenario, the quality of peer review would certainly improve, because
it would be an open process, and because the system would automatically
notify relevant experts of proposed new taxa within their area of interest,
and therefore automatically draw the best-qualified reviewers.  The part
that gives me pause is the threshold by which proposed new names would be
deemed "accepted" or "rejected" via the peer review process.  The decision
would either have to be made purely objectively by a computer algoirthm, or
subjectively by a human.  Both of these alternatives seem problematic to me,
for a number of reasons.

> I think,
> there is a good chance that registration=publication will reduce
> the acceptance of mandatory registration and will eventually kill
> our initiative.

That's exactly what we're here to find out -- what the taxonomic community
is most likely to accept and embrace.  Unfortunately, it's hard to get a
broad range of taxonomists to participate in the discussion.  Maybe there
needs to be a large-scale campaign to get taxonomists to join in the
discussion, so we can find out what the community at large would prefer.
Certainly every taxonomist who plans to name any new species after 2007, and
who uses email, should be involved.

> Let's start with registration, let's get this
> accepted by the taxonomic community (probably difficult enough),
> and then have an open mind (particularly in writing the next
> edition of the code) to allow web-taxonomy to progress within the
> framework of the Code.

I think we all agree that the chosen path must be embraced by the broader
taxonomic community in order to be successful. But I'm not sure it's
necessarily safe to assume that Scenario 1 would be any more appealing, or
more likely to garner widespread acceptance than either Scenario 2 or 3
would.  I have always been an advocate of "baby steps", just as you
describe.  But years ago Doug Tanega made a very convincing case to me that
a more radical change might be *more* appealing to more taxonomists, if it
meant that more of their current problems would be solved.

The tricky part is making sure the alternative options and the implications
of each are well-understood by the principal stakeholders (biologists who
engage in alpha taxonomy).  I think this email list is an excellent start,
but so far includes only 70 subscribers.

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