[Zoobank-list] original descriptions

[Doug Yanega]

Frank Krell wrote:

>However, let's say there were three ant taxonomists left in the 
>world, and they don't like each other (very hypothetical), where 
>would new ant species be published? Do you think, rejects are always 
>objective or based on quality?

Not under the status quo, where only a few reviewers are selected, 
according to an editor's bias, and their reviews are submitted 
anonymously - allowing them to be as subjective as they wish, with no 
repercussions. That's exactly one of the main reasons we *have* so 
many problems with taxonomy. It's too easy to cater to any particular 
bias one might have, including the ultimate act of bias, 
self-publication (a practice that is still alive and well).

Under the system I propose, anyone who *cares* to review a paper on 
ant taxonomy would be welcome to do so - and one does not necessarily 
have to be an expert on a taxon to be able to distinguish shoddy 
research from quality research. Moreover, if those three hypothetical 
argumentative experts had to air out their debate in public, do you 
honestly think it would take people very long to distinguish which of 
the three made the best arguments? I have confidence in the 
collective wisdom of the taxonomic community - that we can spot 
frauds and charlatans, and send them packing, rather than having to 
continue to tolerate bad science simply because there are too many 
vanity journals to police them all.

Rich Pyle similarly wrote:

>This is one of the reasons I'm uneasy about enforcing peer-reviewed 
>full-fledged descriptions (in *any* form -- paper, electronic, or 
>otherwise) as a mandatory component of nomenclatural availability.

Again, I'm not talking about *traditional* peer review. I'm taking 
about allowing every single person who reads a paper, and cares about 
what's in it, to actually have the chance to review it - and make 
their praise or condemnations part of the public record. How can that 
NOT yield far, far better results than the present system? How can 
such a system fail to expose people with purely *subjective* 
criticisms? Greater objectivity would be an inevitable by-product, 
and with better "quality control", the work of us few remaining 
taxonomists would get easier and easier.

>In my view, all that should be required to establish an available 
>scientific name in Zoology are:

In an ideal world, I would happily agree that those four criteria 
would be plenty. But there *are* "cheaters" who exploit the system, 
and make life a misery for the rest of the taxonomic community. I can 
think of several, and though they are admittedly not many (at present 
- and one of the worst modern offenders just passed away recently), 
we could be rid of them entirely if we honestly wanted to be. That 
ignores the "name auctions becoming a cottage industry" line of 
thought, which you and I have discussed before, and - admittedly - is 
something I worry about, myself, but appears unlikely to worry anyone 
else until it actually happens (and, by definition, would then be too 
late to stop). Maybe it's something only a person with an extensive 
background in (1) taxonomy (2) anti-spamming, and (3) eBay could 
conceive of, but where the Web is concerned, if people get even a 
*whiff* of a way to make money, the word will get out, spread 
exponentially, and cause havoc. That's certainly what the brief 
history of the Internet has demonstrated. I'm just suggesting that we 
act in a proactive fashion to counteract the *worst* aspects of the 
Web - and make the *best* aspects of the Web work *for* us, to as 
great an extent as possible.

Sincerely,
-- 

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82